Back in 2008 when I first started to investigate the obvious communication gap between the financing and purchasing departments within organizations, there were telltale indicators that such a breakdown existed. The most ominous of which was the fact that the vast majority of savings claimed by purchasing such as cost avoidance, was discounted as being irrelevant with surprising alacrity by the company bean counters.
Largely the product of the artificially created silos of functionality these gaps, many experts proposed, could only be bridged by a shift in focused understanding on the part of procurement professionals which included what Robert Rudzki, president of Greybeard Advisors and co-author of Straight to the bottom line, identified as the five critical finance terms every purchaser should know:
1. ROIC (Return on Invested Capital): earnings divided by the total capital invested in the business (long term debt plus stockholder equity)
2. Cost of Capital: the weighted average “cost” of debt and equity. It represents what you must earn to, minimally, cover the expectations of your debt holders and stock holders
3. EVA (Economic Value Add): if ROIC is greater than Cost of Capital, then EVA is positive (you are adding value to the organization). If ROIC is less than Cost of Capital, then value is being destroyed and – absent substantial corrective action – the demise of the enterprise is just a matter of time
4. EPS (Earnings per Share): the net income divided by the # of common shares outstanding. Typically calculated on a quarterly and annual basis.
5. P/E Ratio: The ratio of the common stock price to the annual earnings per share. Companies/industries typically “enjoy” certain P/E ratios, therefore, increasing the E (earnings) often directly equates to a higher stock price.
The two “biggees,” says Rudzki, are ROIC and EPS. Those two concepts drive C-level because they are what Wall Street and bankers are interested in. ROIC and EPS are the ultimate “report card” of senior management.
While technically sound and quite relevant at the time, based on present day realities the above guideposts for effecting better internal communication between these two departments is somewhat outdated in terms of its scope or reach of significance.
Specifically, we are no longer looking at the now myopic breakdown in the singular communication channel between finance and purchasing, but instead multiple areas within the global enterprise including IT that are influenced by as many as four different generations simultaneously employed within the same company.
While there is to a certain extent those detractors who would question the true impact of a multi-generational workforce on a company’s ability to communicate and ultimately perform, one thing is for certain . . . it is a variable which complicates rather than clarifies the indigenous breakdowns to which Rudzki had originally referenced.
In fact, as newer generations of purchasing professionals who have actually chosen (versus falling into) their field of work, graduate from schools in which finance is now as much a part of the curriculum as are the all too familiar purchasing basics, the range of expertise becomes less of a question. This shift towards a more holistic enterprise awareness and knowledge means that the very nature or make-up of the aforementioned gaps have also changed to one of dissemination and practical application on a generational versus departmental basis.
The existence of generational divides is a subject about which I recently had the opportunity to talk with expert author Bill McAneny, whose first book “Frankenstein’s Manager: Leadership’s Missing Links” provided a look at some of the root causes of the communication gaps of old. During the October 26th, 2010 PI Window on Business segment “Generational Learning: What is the Impact on the Purchasing Profession?,” Bill shared numerous results from his latest research which directly impact our approach to procurement including contract negotiations.
Of particular interest in the area of contract negotiations was an adjunct Journal of Business and Economics research paper titled “Negotiating Styles Amongst American Purchasing Managers In The 21st Century: Revisited,” (a copy of which you can view through the PI SlideShare Viewer below).
Collectively, these additional elements dramatically change how we do business, especially as we enter into the complicated realms of the governance of global supply chains.
In the end, the core value associated with Rudzki’s determination that it is imperative for purchasing professionals to expand both their view and understanding of the role they play in their organization’s success, including how said contributions are quantified by other stakeholders, while still noteworthy as it pointed us in the right direction, no longer goes far enough. Today’s purchasing professional must comfortably embody many different attributes to establish and maintain meaningful relevance in a world that is no longer one dimensional.