NAEP National Conference 2013Orlando, FL

April 10, 2013

Collaborative Analytics

Identify Cooperative Purchasing Opportunities Easily Across

Multiple Organizations

• Do you recognize this situation?• The key to Collaborative

Analytics • The 7 benefits of Collaborative

Analytics• Building the plan to deliver

WHAT WE’LL COVER TODAY

REACTIVE COLLABORATION

I’m about to source office furniture –

anyone else?

We are, but we won’t be ready

until December.

We just finished our new office furniture contract.

We went with XYZ Company

We’re using a cooperative

contract.

Ok thanks anyway. We’ll make sure it has a piggyback clause in

it for you later.

PROACTIVE COLLABORATION

I’m about to source office furniture –

anyone else?

From looking at the numbers, out of the 12 of

us, we’re using 58 different furniture companies.

And it looks like there are piggybacking clauses in 5 existing contracts, plus there are a couple of coop contracts you could use.

And our group’s spend is pretty concentrated in 8 vendors at

the top – they are getting about 75% of our group’s business

already.

THE KEY TO COLLABORATIVE ANALYTICS IS CONSISTENCY

THE KEY TO COLLABORATIVE ANALYTICS IS CONSISTENCY

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

DATA

pCARDpCARD APAP E-ProcE-Proc

Org 1

pCARDpCARD APAP E-ProcE-Proc

Org 2

pCARDpCARD APAP

Org 3

pCARDpCARD APAP E-ProcE-Proc

Org 4

• “Collaborative Procurement” is more than just piggy-backing on another contract.

• Cooperatives have their place.• Data is an equalizer and an

enabler .• Consistent data and timing are

crucial to being proactive.

THE KEY TO COLLABORATIVE ANALYTICS IS CONSISTENCY

1. Saving money2. Ad-hoc to Strategic shift3. Leverage4. Reduced risk, reduced price5. Admin efficiencies6. Crisis response7. Your money’s impact

THE 7 BENEFITS OF COLLBORATIVE ANALYTICS

These are the top categories of expenditure across six universities and one state agency in South Carolina. While the vendors may or may not already be

common vendors, there are certainly categories that could be rationalized.

STRATEGIC SHIFT:COMMON CATEGORIES

VCode Category Total Unique SuppliersAggregate SpendFinancial Services 75 $50,675,236.50Systems Integration & Services 558 $50,396,647.81Insurance Services 110 $46,897,752.10Telecommunications Services 68 $41,385,348.37IT Hardware & Software 363 $38,360,934.24Employment Services 46 $27,947,383.78General Facilities Management 40 $24,878,216.97Laboratory Equipment & Services 277 $22,113,669.26Educational Equipment 182 $13,130,040.97Vehicle Fuels & Lubricants 39 $10,100,080.37Clinical & Medical 130 $8,768,653.86Road Vehicles 247 $8,133,745.89Cleaning & Janitorial Services 113 $7,912,914.24Business Services 362 $7,120,246.39Stationery 120 $6,937,410.52Marketing 220 $6,928,563.23

This shows the number of contracts by category for two school districts and the Maryland State Department of General Services. By being able to see where there are contracts in common

categories and/or with the same suppliers, it provides a roadmap for when collaboration can take place.

STRATEGIC SHIFT:COMMON CONTRACTS

vCode Total Contracts Anne Arundel Baltimore Schools Dept of General ServicesEducational Equipment 59 38 21Construction Materials 35 1 30 4Systems Integration & Services 32 11 21Travel 32 13 19IT Hardware & Software 29 9 20Stationery 15 2 7 6Construction Consultants 14 14Information Services 14 11 3Machinery and Electronics 13 1 12Construction Equipment 12 1 6 5Technical Consultants 12 12Catering Equipment 11 2 9Clinical & Medical 9 2 7Marketing 9 1 8Security Equipment 8 3 5

For the 24 campuses that make up the California State University System, 66.12% of their spend is already with common vendors. This equates to

$780m. There must be some opportunities for collaboration.

LEVERAGE: COMMON VENDORS

Breaking it down further, there were 9 vendors that supplied all 24 campuses with a cumulative spend of $72.6m. A further 7 that supply 23 of

24 with a cumulative spend of $10.7m.

LEVERAGE:COMMON VENDORS

Breaking it down even further to the vendor level shows how much was spent, by entity, with the common vendors can be very useful in identifying vendors to approach as a group immediately

that the members are already using and for which contracts are probably already in place or available.

LEVERAGE:COMMON VENDORS

Vendor Name Buying Entities Aggregate Spend vCode Vendor Category Campus 1 Campus 2 Campus 3DELL COMPUTER CORP 24 23,210,327.69 Computer Hardware Suppliers 692,506.26 2,776,157.16 654,847.85AT&T 24 22,835,751.65 Fixed Telecoms Service Providers 205,256.68 8,580,529.10 691,678.03OFFICEMAX 24 13,412,510.83 Stationery & Offi ce Products Suppliers 3,930.46 117,749.36 475,483.55THERMO FISHER SCIENTIFIC LLC 24 5,658,018.79 Laboratory Equipment Suppliers 20,095.74 36,973.48 64,097.09W. W. Grainger, Inc. 24 3,835,962.20 Machinery & Engineering Parts Suppliers 7,658.56 40,829.62 42,430.64CDW Government Inc 24 1,796,059.32 IT Resellers 1,656.16 1,219.69 48,114.67APPLE STORE 24 1,010,443.15 Computer Hardware Suppliers 1,243.74 43,640.05 1,685.41Offi ce Depot 24 603,499.77 Stationery & Offi ce Products Suppliers 1,710.16 1,935.88 3,021.334IMPRINT, INC. 24 210,280.79 Promotional Item Suppliers 1,236.69 2,473.38 5,387.04IO CONSULTING INC. 23 4,580,133.41 Managed & Outsourced IT Service Providers 17,233.36 1,407,278.59 21,434.26OCLC ONLINE COMPUTER LIBRARY C 23 1,971,402.58 Software as a Service Providers 37,079.47 321,878.00 42,479.90Amazon.com 23 1,960,239.45 Mail Order Companies 17,093.59 30,054.96THE HOME DEPOT 23 923,651.12 Do-It-Yourself (DIY) Stores 4,377.65 10,471.77 8,352.55HD SUPPLY FACILITIES MAINTENANCE 23 486,754.78 Mail Order Companies 2,962.87 5,925.74 7,730.94Chronicle of Higher Education 23 388,628.14 Other Information Service Providers 9,836.25 4,497.00 21,115.26Best Buy 23 345,134.15 IT Resellers 2,629.72 10,018.44Verizon 22 2,043,887.77 Mobile Communications Service Providers 268,617.48 13,751.01ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC 22 1,160,662.30 Multiple Insurance Service Providers 4,019.55 689,354.50 9,888.19B & H PHOTO VIDEO 22 1,111,460.39 Photographic Equipment Suppliers 10,272.47 52,288.87United Parcel Service 22 508,836.91 Postal & Courier Service Providers 13,017.12 12,072.80 20,137.17

And while there were a lot of common vendors across the

system, there were large differences between campuses in

how much they spent with common vendors. There is no ‘right answer’ as to how much should be spent with common

vendors, but the data provides a starting point for trying to find out

what that answer might be.

LEVERAGE:COMMON VENDORS

Total Spend (Core Trade)

Spend with Common Vendors

Proportion of Total Core Trade Spend with Common Vendors

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Ful lerton, CA $86,095,887 $70,227,218 81.57%

Cal i fornia State Polytechnic Univers i ty - Pomona, CA $52,023,460 $41,635,554 80.03%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Northridge, CA $100,332,456 $74,392,375 74.15%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - East Bay, CA $31,480,348 $22,169,396 70.42%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Offi ce of the Chancel lor, CA $109,806,369 $73,114,275 66.58%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Chico, CA $35,658,396 $22,813,183 63.98%

Cal i fornia Polytechnic State Univers i ty - San Luis Obispo, CA $94,156,323 $58,905,534 62.56%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Dominguez Hi l l s , CA $21,572,464 $13,333,603 61.81%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - San Bernardino, CA $31,637,591 $18,650,835 58.95%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Monterey Bay, CA $11,989,930 $6,624,697 55.25%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Bakersfi eld, CA $16,203,361 $8,596,780 53.06%

Sonoma State Univers i ty, CA $17,368,712 $8,628,791 49.68%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Fresno, CA $42,686,007 $21,149,666 49.55%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Stanis laus , CA $12,313,165 $6,068,783 49.29%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Long Beach, CA $79,231,920 $35,153,738 44.37%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - San Marcos , CA $33,576,834 $14,095,386 41.98%

San Diego State Univers i ty, CA $69,149,401 $28,909,551 41.81%

San Jose State Univers i ty, CA $50,819,506 $19,589,546 38.55%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Channel Is lands , CA $37,707,987 $13,621,180 36.12%

Cal i fornia Maritime Academy, CA $11,951,749 $4,147,267 34.70%

Humboldt State Univers i ty, CA $25,541,702 $8,562,846 33.52%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Sacramento, CA $60,479,701 $18,187,764 30.07%

San Francisco State Univers i ty, CA $88,580,151 $23,151,146 26.14%

Cal i fornia State Univers i ty - Los Angeles , CA $59,355,900 $15,426,429 25.99%

Grand Total $1,179,719,319 $627,155,544 53.16%

Even between institutions that are in different states, there is a huge commonality of vendors. There were 286 vendors in common to the

Universities of Colorado, Montana and Idaho with $115m common spend.

LEVERAGE:COMMON VENDORS

Just as you would expect the return on an investment to be higher the riskier the investment, vendors factor contract risk into their pricing. The

higher the risk to the vendor, the higher the price to compensate.

REDUCED RISK/REDUCED PRICE

These are a number of contracts available to California State University campuses, all in one place in a standard format, and include State Contracts, E&I Contracts, and California State University System contracts. Where there

are multiple contracts with the same vendor, it provides an easier opportunity to compare contract pricing.

SAVINGS AND/OR ADMIN EFFICIENCIES: GPO CONTRACTS

Supplier Name Start Date Expiry Date Contract OwnerAAAS 01/01/2012 31/12/2012 CSU Chancellors OfficeAccount Control Technology 01/01/2005 30/06/2012 CSU Chancellors OfficeAccu Weather Sales & Service 01/07/2011 30/06/2012 CSU Chancellors OfficeADAMSON POLICE PRODUCTS 01/09/2011 31/08/2012 DGS, CAAdaptive Solutions Inc. 23/01/2008 31/12/2012 CSU Chancellors OfficeADECCO EMPLOYMENT SERVICES 01/11/2008 31/10/2017 E&IAdobe Systems Inc 01/07/2011 30/06/2012 CSU Chancellors OfficeADVANTAGE FITNESS SERVICE 01/12/2008 30/11/2018 E&IAECOM USA INC 02/12/2005 30/06/2012 CSU Chancellors OfficeAFB CONSULTING 18/11/2009 30/06/2012 CSU Chancellors OfficeAGB Search 28/09/2011 27/09/2014 CSU Chancellors OfficeAIRGAS EAST INC 01/01/2011 30/06/2014 E&IAIRGAS EAST INC 01/01/2011 30/06/2014 E&IAIRGAS EAST INC 01/07/2011 31/10/2012 E&IAIRGAS EAST INC 01/07/2011 31/10/2012 E&I

There were a total of 107,755 non pCard transactions for less than $500, but which only amounted to 2.41% of expenditure. This is a potential opportunity for a collaborative

group to work with vendors and reduce the administrative burden of too many invoices.

ADMIN EFFICIENCIES:INVOICE VOLUMES

Some consistency in the goods purchased and from the same vendors can make it much easier for the group members to reallocate or share resources in times of crisis such as parts for snow plows, text books, emergency generators/supplies.

CRISIS RESPONSE: REALLOCATION

46.77% of spending by this group was with small and medium sized businesses (those businesses employing fewer than 250 people). By looking more closely by category as a group, this data can

be used to determine where a small savings value may lose when up against other considerations.

YOUR MONEY’S IMPACT:SMALL AND MEDIUM BUSINESS

One criticism of collaborative procurement is that it doesn’t give

local/minority/small/disadvantaged businesses a fair chance to compete. Through collaborative analytics, the

impact of cooperative procurement on the groups diversity spend can be

assessed as part of the collaborative analytics process.

YOUR MONEY’S IMPACT:MINORITY/DIVERSITY SPEND

Category (vCode Level 1) Total Core Trade Spend

Total Prime Contractor Spend

with Certified Vendors

Proportion of Prime Conractor Spend with Certified Vendors

Securi ty Equipment & Services 10,289,853.35$ 1,841,881.46$ 17.90%

Faci l ities Management 59,587,631.96$ 10,249,815.40$ 17.20%

Marketing & Media 30,622,903.33$ 4,391,053.14$ 14.34%

Transportation Management 4,342,449.69$ 484,489.40$ 11.16%

Vehicles 10,404,759.06$ 1,090,272.73$ 10.48%

Construction 461,465,449.72$ 40,423,688.38$ 8.76%

Industria l Goods 15,783,631.97$ 1,205,513.08$ 7.64%

Profess ional Services 29,317,163.56$ 2,178,577.38$ 7.43%

Animals & Farming 2,615,978.65$ 162,606.50$ 6.22%

Retai l & Wholesale 17,476,948.22$ 1,074,845.77$ 6.15%

Clothing 1,705,813.08$ 101,260.91$ 5.94%

Waste & Environmental Services 9,215,543.38$ 546,358.28$ 5.93%

Logistics & Mai l 7,426,295.89$ 439,607.67$ 5.92%

Information Technology 178,781,101.97$ 9,403,721.64$ 5.26%

Healthcare 16,388,677.67$ 786,472.28$ 4.80%

Offi ce Suppl ies 17,676,276.06$ 751,202.10$ 4.25%

Personal Care 71,426.64$ 2,750.00$ 3.85%

Arts , Sport & Recreation 12,773,964.91$ 348,007.11$ 2.72%

Travel & Accommodation 14,960,384.28$ 390,037.79$ 2.61%

Other Goods & Services 2,317,616.33$ 45,183.69$ 1.95%

Food, Beverage & Catering 7,614,914.40$ 112,108.85$ 1.47%

Business Support Services 39,990,948.48$ 444,103.95$ 1.11%

Laboratory 19,978,712.25$ 219,030.48$ 1.10%

Util ities & Energy 82,681,230.81$ 799,640.90$ 0.97%

Learning & Development 19,626,947.78$ 133,317.70$ 0.68%

Financia l Services 64,709,684.15$ 82,516.33$ 0.13%

Socia l Care & Services 8,307,940.48$ 6,569.57$ 0.08%

Chari table & Rel igious Activity 32,391,230.80$

Publ ic Sector Bodies 1,151,580.78$

Grand Total 1,179,677,059.65$ 77,714,632.49$ 6.59%

BUILDING THE PLAN FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF SAVINGS

All departments, system-wide, full group

opportunities

Specific departments, some campuses, some

group members

Department, campus or member specific

• If you want to be strategic about collaboration, you need to start with data.

IN CONCLUSION

NAEP National Conference 2013Orlando, FL

April 10, 2013

Collaborative Analytics

Identify Cooperative Purchasing Opportunities Easily Across

Multiple Organizations