« Five ways for procurement and HR to work better together | Main | You're doing something right when the creatives get involved... »

Regionalisation - is it the new centralisation? 

There's myriad ways to describe how procurement functions are organised - centralised, central-led, decentralised are the three most common. But one phrase which I heard at the Procurement Leaders Forum perhaps explains current thinking more than most - regionalisation.

The CPO I was speaking to told me how his company was increasingly adopting a strategy of regionalisation to ensure product sourcing is done with the local markets in mind. Nothing particularly new in that, you're might be thinking.

But it's worth mentioning, because in the current climate, with senior leadership looking for cost benefits wherever they can find them, a return to regionalisation might seem contradictory. Not so. The focus on the regions will allow this particular company to improve its offering and adapt their portfolio to local tastes and requirements.

Equally, it will help the company to innovate. Through a network of local supplier relationships built around original design manufacturing agreements, the company in question can tap into the local expertise of suppliers while maintaining ownership of the innovative new product developments.

This particular CPO wasn't the only one who talked about a move away from centralisation. One attendee from a relatively well-known energy company said how his organisation was pulling back from centralised procurement with a business-unit led model being the current thinking.

Both examples offered food for thought at a time when most would say that centralised procurement is the panacea.

PrintView Printer Friendly Version

EmailEmail Article to Friend

Reader Comments (3)

I think all companies are looking for cost savings especially in the food manufacturing sector. Most of the large food companies as I see it do not allow companies that they have bought or purchased allow them to use their purchasing people to their full potential or use the experience they have in their respective plants or company as to why they purchase what they purchase,
May 15, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterGlen Meskimen
Centralisation for its own sake never should be the panacea. Category management should be driven to optimise the org around the category; what appears to be being "discovered" is that many categories are best managed regionally then benchmarked centrally because the markets themselves are not organised "centrally", and therefore don't respond well to further aggregation and leverage.

As a "Regional" CPO this is clearly the current direction, particularly when one adds the need to drive CSR and "re-boot" the local economies to get the jobs market going. The trick then is to ensure that Regional Leads recognise when a market has changed and gone "global" or central and being big enough to work collaboratively not defensively.
May 18, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterRay Searles
Ray Searles remarks are spot on regarding regionalization. As someone who has been part of "Global" Procurement organisations for many years, there was always this push to do "global" contracts because it was assumed that they would leverage added benefit from the company's global footprint. More often than not, they tended to be too complex to implement and out of touch with local/regional market idiosynchracies, took too long to negotiate, and then resulted in "lowest common denominator" pricing solutions that the local/regional markets could often beat. Bigger is not always better.
May 22, 2009 | Unregistered CommenterHoward Richman

PostPost a New Comment

Enter your information below to add a new comment.

My response is on my own website »
Author Email (optional):
Author URL (optional):
Post:
 
All HTML will be escaped. Hyperlinks will be created for URLs automatically.