COMMENT
When Railcare went into administration in 2013, it had to be bought out by Knorr-Bremse Rail Systems. Jobs were ultimately saved at its Wolverton and Springburn depots.
Cutting the cost of failure in rail procurement
Annette Gevaert, Director of Rail and Transport at Achilles, explores the knock-on costs when suppliers fail – or fail to deliver.
T
he Department for Transport has committed over £38bn for Network Rail to run and improve the network between 2014 and 2019. Under the CP5 spending plans billions of pounds will be channelled into updating stations, building new track and increasing capacity – more than 7,000km of track and nearly 6,000 sets of points will be renewed or refurbished, and 7,000km of fencing and 300,000m2 of station platforms will be replaced or renewed.
This is just an example of the scale of spend underway in the rail sector – “record amounts,” according to transport secretary Patrick McLoughlin.
But with such large sums being spent, we need to ask if procurement professionals are protecting their investments by adequately mitigating risk?
Be prepared for a shock. Recent research* suggests that there are significant annual costs associated with supply chain failure.
Global supplier information firm Achilles, which manages Link-up,
the supplier
registration and pre-qualification scheme, commissioned independent consultancy IFF to survey a broad industry base including businesses in rail. Results showed that supply chain failure is costing annually an average of £165,600 in total per business.
That includes: suppliers failing to deliver on time; the failure of a supplier to deliver the required service in terms of quality; the financial failure of a supplier; natural disasters and severe weather; damage to reputation due to a supplier; failure of a supplier to meet its health and safety obligations; industrial action; exposure to litigation due to a supplier; and acts of terrorism or conflict.
24 | rail technology magazine Apr/May 14
The most common cause of failure is a supplier failing to deliver on time, experienced by 64% of those surveyed and resulting in an average cost of £58,000. Just over half (53%) experienced an issue with suppliers failing to deliver products of the required quality, 34% of whom incurred a cost. The average bill was £111,500.
And ranking third in the most common causes of failure is a supplier going bust. One third (37%) experienced the financial failure of a supplier, with 44% paying a financial price. The average cost was £73,000.
Examples of suppliers to the rail sector failing financially are not difficult to find.
Only in January, Bombardier supplier
Engments failed after operating for more than 50 years. In November Vital Services Group, the largest supplier of labour for Network Rail, went into administration, affecting 2,200 workers. And earlier, in August last year, Railcare, the company that maintains the Royal train, went bust with the loss of 150 jobs.
Of course, a supplier going out of business could also be the reason for ‘a supplier failing to deliver on time’. But then there are other risks too, such as a supplier failing to comply with health and safety rules. A failure of this nature can bring even greater costs in terms of loss of life, litigation, delays, and damage to reputation.
Some 5% of respondents had been exposed to litigation – with an average pay-out of £110,000 for those where a cost was involved – and 10% of those surveyed experienced damage to reputation, with an average cost of £292,000 to those experiencing cost.
With such significant costs being incurred it
is important that buyers ensure that risk of supplier failure is minimised. Of course, not all failure costs can be avoided, but efforts need to be made to identify early indicators of failure so that their impact can be mitigated – and the way to achieve this is to get smart with supplier information.
Those in charge of procurement and supply chain management should not shy away from investment, but must act swiftly to put processes in place that provide in-depth, accurate and validated information on suppliers – and critically, this should include detailed and up-to-date financial data.
Managing supplier information need not
be a costly in-house operation. Working in a collaborative community of suppliers and buyers aligned to the railway sector, economies of scale make thorough checks on data a viable and highly efficient option, bringing operational benefits to both buyers and suppliers. By being part of the community, the costs are shared and data only needs to be maintained at one central location, where it is checked by one centralised resource – all of which makes life easier for suppliers too.
Taking action to manage supplier information in the right way can reduce exposure to risk and cut the expense of supply chain failure.
*Research was conducted on behalf of Achilles by IFF Research in January 2014
amongst 146
directors, procurement managers and buyers of large UK businesses.
Annette Gavaert
FOR MORE INFORMATION
www.achilles.co.uk
© Steve Parsons & PA Wire
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180 |
Page 181 |
Page 182 |
Page 183 |
Page 184 |
Page 185 |
Page 186 |
Page 187 |
Page 188 |
Page 189 |
Page 190 |
Page 191 |
Page 192 |
Page 193 |
Page 194 |
Page 195 |
Page 196 |
Page 197 |
Page 198 |
Page 199 |
Page 200 |
Page 201 |
Page 202 |
Page 203 |
Page 204 |
Page 205 |
Page 206 |
Page 207 |
Page 208