Adobe股票
在上一篇文章中，我介绍了the concept of “plan to pay,”传统源代码进程的扩展（S2P）。但是，拨款工作流程通常通过供应链中的直接材料的供应计划来实施，但不适合间接支出管理。事实上，它从典型的“上游”采购进程中开始更多的上游。为了扩展坏的隐喻，它有点像源于在“利益相关者山”上的源泉池，其送到S2P值流。它始于业务规划过程和财务规划过程（例如，金融LED FP和流程中的预算），然后将其链接到供应商通过分类规划，项目规划等。
但这并不容易实施！在上一篇文章中，我给出了试图占用花店的简单示例（即，按成本中心，类别和供应商花费历史的PO /发票的行项目）并将其投射到前进。If you have decent PO management and contract modeling, you might have some forward-looking visibility into future spend (like contract renewals and blanket PO’s), but for the rest, the best you will likely do is a budget reflected in your cost centers that are checked in the P2P process.
The trick here is to predict and plan the diverse mix of spend that will unfold within those budgets, and the extent that procurement can help the business drive more value from that spend upfront in the process. This is where real spend influence lies to help stakeholders support their business outcomes with limited budgets.
If procurement doesn’t manage this process formally with finance in the business, all sorts of dysfunctional behaviors and misalignments will result:
- Budgeting is disconnected from supplier spend planning in category management, commercial/contract management, and supplier management.
- 预算过程与P2P断开连接，并在采购进入过程中时与业务创造不满意（当利益相关者认为具有可用预算足够好时）。These spend thresholds for procurement involvement are also usually very high because procurement doesn’t want to hold up the process when the requirement comes in so late in the game (which is why earlier involvement in spend planning is critical to touch more spend and to better effect).
- 采购被降级到价格讨论而不是讨论花费和业务成果。
- 储蓄跟踪成为事实上的练习，而不是按预期计划（包括采购自己的储蓄和其他价值改进的目标设定过程）。
- 功能障碍使用 - IT或丢失IT预算过程。通过零基于零的预算（ZBB）过程来解决这个问题是解决它的一种方法，但它是高效的。
Doing spend management properly means starting it off right and basically treating it like the mirror image of the sales funnel. This “spend funnel” starts proactively during business planning and then flows through category planning, budget setting (with savings pre-baked into the budgets), sourcing/contracting, and then P2P for execution.
Unfortunately, the data in this funnel is fragmented across numerous systems, and we’ve been hoping that an S2P suite provider (or possibly an analytics-centric solution from a services provider or an FP&A-centric tech provider) might be able to help procurement proverbially swim upstream and perform this “spend planning.” In fact, back in 2014,we hopedfor this:
一个系统可以“翻译Pro Forma财务计划的G / L视图到计划的供应商支出（例如即将举行的合同续订）以及预算所有者将不得不对（例如项目的运营计划流程（例如，项目规划 - vs-执行，提供规划 - vs-执行等）。它需要强大的分析，不仅可以在GL分类学，类别分类和合同投资组合之间映射，而且还涉及规划数据（例如，版本化的方案计划和滚动预算修订）。此建模是不动的，您将需要将您以前的历史记录数据快照集成到FP和A应用中存在的前瞻性，时间分段规划数据模型。“
And then we waited … and waited. And finally, a few months ago, we heard from GEP on a solution that they’ve been working on that addresses this exact area. GEP calls it a “Budget to Pay” solution, and it is, in essence, an extension of its core S2P suite that addresses most of what I’ve discussed in this broader plan-to-pay area.
We participated in multiple demonstrations and discussed some of the findings from GEP’s initial customer implementations. We’re waiting to get more feedback directly from its early customers, but the results so far seem impressive. GEP plans to formally release this solution in the near future, but in this Spend Matters PRO analysis, we’ll share some of our insights on the detailed problem statements and how the solution adds value (which is more than just technology).