A recent Spend Matters post alerted me to a CAPS Research study (free registration required) that indicated that eAuction usage had declined to an average of 2.58% of total spend in 2007 from 3.24% in 2005.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t miss updates on Procurement & Supply Chain, Subscribe here!<\/p>\n
An article in the Go Pro (Government Procurement) magazine I received today, touted the growth of eAuction usage among government agencies buying electricity and other energy commodities.<\/p>\n
I was alerted to a recent article in Printing Impressions magazine whose title says it all about the tone of the article: \u201cThe Fading Reverse Auction.\u201d This article references a survey that indicated that 85% of print buyers are not using reverse auctions and 48% of print suppliers say that none of their customers are using reverse auctions.<\/p>\n
So, are reverse auctions growing? Declining? Both? Neither? What\u2019s the reason for the change if there is one? Does the reverse auction still have value or is it going to be the dinosaur of tomorrow?<\/p>\n
Here is my impression\u2026<\/p>\n
Reverse auction usage, and its appropriateness, is tied to economic conditions.<\/p>\n
When the economy is growing, prices are rising, and supplier capacity is filling up, some suppliers can afford to pick and choose their customers and can decline opportunities to bid if they dislike the bidding mechanism (i.e., the reverse auction format). When the economy is in a recession, prices fall, and suppliers are eager to fill their capacity to keep their workforce employed and to stay in business. They can\u2019t be choosy with what opportunities they are presented with.<\/p>\n
So when the economy is bad, reverse auctions are good for buyers because they maximize the competitive forces that drive prices down. When the economy is good, reverse auctions need to be considered more carefully.<\/p>\n
Note that I didn\u2019t say \u201creverse auctions are bad.\u201d<\/p>\n
That\u2019s because they still can work in good economic times. You just have to evaluate the impact on competition. If you have a significant percentage of suppliers declining to bid because they do not like the format, conducting a reverse auction can effectively reduce overall competition although the competitive forces at work for those suppliers that do participate are still maximized.<\/p>\n
This perspective is a natural extension of the thoughts I expressed on this topic in my 2004 articles \u201ceSourcing & Supplier Relationships, Part I\u201d and \u201ceSourcing & Supplier Relationships, Part II.\u201d<\/p>\n
What concerns me is that people who misuse reverse auctions blame the auction and not the person. There are too many examples of such in the Printing Impressions article.<\/p>\n
One print buyer was quoted as saying \u201c\u201cWe only did a reverse auction once, and we\u2019ll never do it again. With a reverse auction bid, you get what you pay for\u2014but if you vary from the bid, you will get charged handsomely.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is Purchasing 101. If you do any RFP \u2013 auctioned or not \u2013 you need to request pricing for work that goes outside of the specification. Don\u2019t leave that to chance. So is it the auction or the skills of the buyer that caused the problem here?<\/p>\n
And, wait. Isn\u2019t \u201cWe tried that once and it didn\u2019t work\u201d supposed to be one of the excuses that purchasing and supply management teams try to fight when working with internal departments? It\u2019s one of the worst excuses in business.<\/p>\n
If something didn\u2019t work, figure out why it didn\u2019t and fix it. That\u2019s how you learn and improve.<\/p>\n
That buyer went on to say \u201cReverse auctions are only good if you absolutely need to have rock-bottom prices and can sacrifice quality and service.\u201d<\/p>\n
That is simply an untrue statement.<\/p>\n
In our class \u201cExpert Purchasing Management,\u201d we list \u201c10 Keys To eSourcing Success.\u201d #6 is \u201cInvite Only Suppliers To Whom You Would Want To Award Your Business.\u201d Why would you invite suppliers who have unacceptable quality and service? Again, is it the auction or the skills of the buyer that is at fault?<\/p>\n
The buyer goes on to say \u201cWe have found, even with due diligence, reverse auctions can drive down the price, but then you get nickel-and-dimed in production. In printing, there are many variances that cannot always be outlined in the initial specifications.\u201d<\/p>\n
But wouldn\u2019t the specifications be the same whether you got your proposals via a reverse auction or via an envelope? So, you\u2019d still be paying over-and-aboves either way, right?<\/p>\n
Uh, huh.<\/p>\n
The Printing Impressions article was overly-biased in my biased opinion. The article ranted about the evil reverse auction, but explored little contrary perspective. At the very end, the author noted that \u201cI am not suggesting that all buying companies are against reverse auctions. While the majority of print buyers don\u2019t support them, 15 percent of our May Quick Poll respondents found them to be effective.\u201d<\/p>\n
The author quoted another print buyer as saying \u201cWe use reverse auctions regularly. We find that they\u2019re very useful when your commodity is well-defined, when there are six or more pre-qualified bidders, and when all bidders understand that the bid will be awarded at the end of the reverse auction (so they must give their best and final price at that time).\u201d<\/p>\n
So 15% are successful and 85% are unsuccessful. That calls to mind the Pareto Principle and sounds pretty typical of success in business. A small number of people account for a large percentage of the success. So why not interview the successful 15%, learn the secrets to their success, and help the majority of people who are struggling?<\/p>\n
Sounds like the suppliers make the rules in the printing industry and most of the buyers are unnecessarily at their mercy.<\/p>\n
What\u2019s wrong with this picture?<\/p>\n
Reverse auctions are a tool. They are not a replacement for smart buyers. Like any tool, they can be misused by a less-than-fully-educated user.<\/p>\n
Don\u2019t hurt yourself.<\/p>\n
Recommended Reading<\/strong><\/p>\n Reverse Auctions STILL Controversial? Come On!<\/a> A recent Spend Matters post alerted me to a CAPS […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":12,"featured_media":4090,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2509","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-procurement"],"yoast_head":"\n
\nThe Purch-lympics Finals Have Begun. Vote Now!<\/a>
\nThe Purch-lympics Finals Start August 27!<\/a>
\nCost Containment<\/a>
\nBuyers Meeting Point Experiences Double-Digit Monthly Growth<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"