We use cookies to improve your experience on our website. By using our website you consent to our privacy policies and our terms of service.

Thank you.

Your preferences have been saved.

Hidden in Plain Sight: National Study Reveals The Challenges of Source-to-Pay in Energy

October 22, 2024
-
Austin, TX

By Adam Hirschfeld, Senior Vice President

A Finger in the Wind 

At Workrise, we believe the source-to-pay lifecycle is the glue that holds energy field operations together. But the reality is that the promise of source-to-pay (S2P) hasn’t been realized in energy. Not yet, that is.

The incumbents — the SAPs, Oracles, and Coupas of the world — offer outdated, overcomplicated options that don’t solve for the unique needs of the energy industry. Point solutions abound that solve for individual slices of the source-to-pay process, but aren’t designed to talk to each other, and create more complexity than they fix. Data is siloed, inaccessible, and often manually entered, calling into question the accuracy of the information leaders can access when making decisions. Bloated, often heavily manual processes and large teams mask the true costs of vendor management.

This is all in part because source-to-pay is an emerging category — Gartner’s Magic Quadrant for Source-to-Pay Suites was released for the first time just a few months ago — and this is especially true when it comes to energy. 

Simply put, there is no benchmark for source-to-pay in energy. So we decided to create one.

Workrise commissioned NewtonX, the world's leading B2B market research company, to formulate and field an impartial benchmark study on the space. In total 120 leaders participated, hailing from energy companies and their suppliers in the US and Canada. Their roles range from managers with regional scope to VP and C-Level executives and represent a broad swath of the energy spectrum — from service companies like Seadrill and Worley to industry behemoths like BP, Enbridge, Chevron, Shell, and TotalEnergies.

This is the first in a series of studies that will measure the state of source-to-pay annually – as well as the push and pull of the many factors that impact it – for years to come.

The findings confirmed and quantified what we see day in and day out working with operators and suppliers across the US and Canada: The source-to-pay process is fractured, and it’s a problem that’s been hiding in plain sight — driving up costs and inefficiencies, creating operational disruptions, and muddying the waters for leaders who need accurate data to get the most out of every dollar they spend.

These are strong words. Read on to see how we arrived at these conclusions.

Cost Pressures Abound

Operators are Feeling the Squeeze 

Compared to this time last year, confidence from energy leaders remains high (94% confident or very confident) that they will hit their targets at the company and department level. At the same time, rising costs — and pressure to cut costs — represent 2 of the top 3 challenges energy leaders face, with geopolitical uncertainty rounding out the Top 3.

To combat rising external costs, industry leaders are:

  • Researching new purchasing and procurement solutions (48%)
  • Implementing new technologies (43%)
  • Streamlining internal processes and workflows (39%)

To achieve reductions in operating costs, they are:

  • Eliminating or downsizing programs not seen as essential (64%)
  • Streamlining internal processes and workflows (50%)
  • Making changes to organizational structure to reduce overhead (50%)

Unfortunately, across all categories of respondents, the No. 1 blocker to implementing solutions that address these challenges is a lack of sufficient human resources to implement the change.

The best companies adapt. Meaningful changes are required to be successful in this environment. But energy leaders are struggling to find the bandwidth to make those changes.

Misalignment Between Internal Cost-Cutting Targets and Market Realities

When asked about supply chain-related cost savings, respondents reported being asked to find an astonishing 40%-60% reduction in cost across categories, on average. Yet over a third of suppliers (37%) reported operating above capacity, up from 25% last year’s study — a 50% gain. And 56% of operations leaders from service companies reported full capacity billing.

This may be why 38% of respondents from energy companies reported seeking access to products and services from a wider pool of vendors, and 67% of respondents see strengthening relationships with existing vendors as a lever for improving costs and navigating choppy geopolitical waters.

But no matter how you slice it, there is a clear tension between asking for major cost cuts and strengthening relationships with vendors at the same time. Add to that the seemingly endless stream of geopolitical uncertainty (an expanded war in the Middle East, the US presidential election, and China’s flailing economy, to name a few), and it would seem that energy companies are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to achieving cost savings from suppliers.

When it comes to the Source-to-Pay lifecycle, companies are getting by. To a degree.

Efficiency Challenges Create Widespread Ripple Effects

Ask anyone in energy whether they can find the suppliers they need, engage them to deliver projects, and pay them for work completed, and the answer will always be yes.

But ask them how efficiently they can manage the S2P process, and our study found that only 30% of leaders say their company is “highly efficient” at managing the process across all the teams it touches. Instead, many echo what one supply chain manager reported: “Efficiency-wise we’re maybe a three. Three out of 10.”

On its face, that rings alarm bells. But it shouldn’t be surprising.

Only 27% of respondents reported that 80% or more of their projects were delivered on budget, and 94% of leaders reported invoice rejections due to errors. In addition, on average, energy companies in the US employ an average of 124 FTEs who spend 80% or more of their time managing suppliers.

In a world where such a large share of the hard costs associated with project delivery is informed by vendor costs, and where the process from sourcing to payments is so broken that 124 or more FTEs spend the vast majority of their time managing it, something clearly needs to change.

94%

of Industry Leaders Reported Invoice Disputes Due to Errors

Workrise Bid Management: Product Overview
No items found.
No items found.

Leaders Lack Access to Quality Data 

Data plays a crucial role in a company’s ability to deliver projects on time and on budget, and of course in any leader’s ability to manage against the KPIs for which they are accountable. Unfortunately, due to the fragmented and highly manual process by which most energy companies manage the S2P lifecycle, data challenges abound. The study revealed that: 

  • Nearly half of Supply Chain leaders (49%) don’t have the data they need to compare and contrast vendors outside of their AVL.
  • Almost 40% of leaders lack the real-time spend data and reporting that is essential to proactive spend and project management. In Oil & Gas, an industry where it takes seven to 10 days to drill a well yet averages 45 days to process a single invoice, this should not be a big surprise.
  • Nearly a third of energy leaders say they lack reliable data on their most critical KPIs.

When you consider that most energy companies use eight or more separate tools to manage the S2P lifecycle, and so much data entry is manual, these data challenges are understandable. 

For an industry projected to spend $1B in the US alone this year, these challenges beg some important questions: 

  • Is this — leaders without real-time spend data, leaders lacking the data they need to search for vendors outside their AVL, leaders missing reliable data on their most important KPIs — good enough?
  • How much of every dollar of capex is wasted instead of being put to use for the greater good of the company?

The Costs of Just "Getting By” Are Substantial

We’ve touched on service costs. But what about the costs —both hard and soft — an organization incurs to manage the purchasing process? 

Workrise recently commissioned a study to surface data on the true costs of managing suppliers from the moment of onboarding through to compliance management and payments. It found that this process is incredibly high-cost and labor-intensive for Oil & Gas companies. 

The study found that for an average supplier, onboarding saps 47 hours of FTE time, and compliance management alone requires an average of 70 hours per year. When you consider that the average respondent reported 1,057 active field vendors managed annually, 52 new vendors onboarded, and 175,620 invoices processed in a calendar year, it’s easy to see why 310 FTEs are pulled into this equation to varying degrees, and the average energy company spends $8.11M and 125,005 man hours annually simply keeping the source-to-pay process afloat.

And this does not even take into account any of the work associated with evaluating new suppliers, securing competitive bids, and selecting suppliers before moving them into the onboarding and contract negotiation process.

Factor that in, and the $8M average climbs still higher, which only raises more questions:

  • Why aren’t more companies seeing this as both a problem and an opportunity to improve how they operate?
  • What could those 310 FTEs accomplish if they weren’t tasked with mundane process management and approval workflows?
310

The Number of Full-Time Employees That Touch the S2P Lifecycle for an Operator with 1,000 Vendors

No items found.

A solution exists, but first we must acknowledge the problem.

One question in the NewtonX study elicited this response from a leader at a larger energy company: “Purchasing and vendor management isn’t a problem for us. We’re built for it.”

But if it takes 310 FTEs to manage the purchasing lifecycle, is this really being “built” for success?

The source-to-pay lifecycle touches every department at every energy company in the world. It costs companies millions annually in wages, technology, and tooling, but millions more in opportunity costs that are harder to measure:

  • The mindshare pull that legacy systems and manual processes require of the teams that manage them
  • The opportunities missed by not having the data to proactively manage field operations in real time
  • The operational disruptions caused when a supplier either doesn’t show up, or isn’t capable of finishing a job

The list goes on. And yet less than half of energy leaders who took part in the study have both heard the term “source-to-pay” and know what solutions in this space offer.

In a world where cost relief won’t come from the goods and services companies purchase, and global demand for energy will only rise more sharply as society innovates, energy companies must look inward to find ways to improve their cost basis. Optimizing the source-to-pay lifecycle represents a massive opportunity for those who are willing to seize it.

Stay Tuned

In the coming months we will continue to dive deeper into this first installment of our annual study on The State of Source-to-Pay. Stay tuned for more from Workrise as we continue to lead the line on source-to-pay for energy, one step at a time.

Copy Link to Share
References

1. A Workrise and NewtonX study on the Oil & Gas Supply Chain (2023)