Proxima Blog

Indirect and Direct spend - are the right differentiators for most companies. From my experience coming from a global FMCG company and now Energy Network company the terms are more that appropriate and used in the business language every day. Importantly the terms are linked to the roles and accountabilities in the Strategic Procurement divisions.

Another interesting description of indirects is goods go in businesses, while the description for directs is goods go through businesses.

I think it depends on the organization's culture. My buying experience was indirect (transportation and customs). I never felt I was a second class buyer. A dollar saved in indirect fell to the bottom line just like the dollar saved in direct. It wasn't uncommon for buyers to bounce back and forth between direct and indirect.

An interesting question. I am really interested in following the answers from the procurement side.

"Addressable Spend" is a more relevant moniker. There is spend you can impact and spend you can't - such as taxes, financing, etc. Everything else is fair game and needs to be looked at holistically.  
 
My direct supplier might have a division/subsidiary serving a sister organization of mine. To have silos around direct and indirect from a strategic perspective can be limiting.

From where I sit, the term 'indirect' is mostly used in manufacturing opposite 'direct' procurement. Here, direct is all that goes into the end product, indirect represents everything else. 
 
Many service organizations don't make this distinction and simply speak of purchasing or corporate procurement. 
 
Others who are unhappy with the potential for misinterpretation of 'indirect' prefer to refer to 'discretionary spend' which is the most comprehensive term I've come across to date, but it's not commonly used procurement lingo either...yet!

I don't know that any of these terms are necessarily positive or negative in nature, they are simply terms that we apply to help us easily characterize spend. I believe it is very much a common practice to characterize spend which is not directly included in the cost of revenue as indirect and there is nothing wrong with that. I've seen further delineation of indirect where some may carve out IT or HR and Professional Service but essentially I think of indirect as anything in the General and Administrative section of the P&L. The idea in the article to rename Procurement may have some merit but again to what end? Gaining more respect from management has more to to with a culture change than anything else. Fostering respect among the masses by great performance and pushing accomplishments upstream to make them more visible to leadership may do more for this goal than anything else. Renaming the function isn't going to do much towards attaining that goal.

If you read Michael Porter's treatment of procurement in his value Chain model, it may shine some clarity on things. His distiction is between primary and support activities in the model. Neither one is more important than the other - the key factor is the extent to which they contribute to competitive advantage.

I have been part of teams that were titled Not For Resale or Indirect and the terminology never bothered me. I do agree, however, that the terminology reveals a perception on the part of the larger organization that a procurement or sourcing group is not suited to handle buying 'direct' or customer facing materials and services. Rather than changing the terminology to be less potentially negative, I think a better approach would be to step back and take a broader perspective.  
 
Procurement is procurement regardless of what is being bought. We have long fought the battle to make sure services are seen as eligible for the same management and negotiation process as materials, and I think the time has come to do away with the distinction between direct and indirect spend.  
 
Most procurement groups function on the premise that a standard process taken on by a combination of operations and procurement team members generates great value through strategy, objectivity, and technology. There is no reason (including the relative importance of suppliers) that this premise does not hold true across all categories of spend - direct included. I would guess that many companies are more likely to hire a consulting firm to manage their direct spend rather than to trust the experience and skill of their internal procurement function. Often this decision is based on category expertise that the consulting firm has (or claims to have). In truth, if a company is able to combine the category experience of their operations folks with the process expertise of their procurement team, the outcome may be even better because no one is going anywhere at the end of the project.  
 
Thanks for a great question to chew on.  
 
p.s. On the subject of terminology, I'd still rather be called 'indirect' than a 'buyer', but that's probably a discussion for another day!

Interesting question. It shows that Procurement still has a long way to go to be properly recognised for its contribution. I am aware of an organisation that had over a thousand people in Procurment spending €30Bn ish a year (65% of turnover). They did not have a procurement position on their main board, merely "initiatives". 
 
We still have to educate the senior movers and shakers. until we do that we won't move forward

Indirect

In my opinion, the word indirect when referring to a commodity should not be treated as less important than a direct commodity, nor do I think the name should be changed. It is standard language in the procurement industry. Direct commodities are those that are monitored in an inventory control system, as they are what make up the final product. Indirect commodities are not necessarily inventoried, but are not less important in manufacturing the final product. Since I come from a solid dosage manufacturing pharmaceutical background, I can illustrate what my former company considered direct and indirect commodities. Direct commodities would be the active pharmaceutical ingredient (API), excipient, capsule shell, bottle, closure, rayon, dessicant, label, and insert/outsert, which are all inventory items, and which comprise the final product before shipping. Indirect commodities would be everything else purchased - lab supplies (including chemicals and reagents used to test the product), safety supplies, office supplies, equipment, uniforms, disposable garments, printed material (other than labels and inserts/outserts), etc. - all of which are necessary towards manufacturing the final product. Although lead times and delivery dates are controlled through an inventory control system for direct commodities, indirect commodities also need to be monitored informally for lead times and delivery dates, as failure to receive these items on time could lead to production delays. This could affect the delivery dates of the direct commodities, as companies want to receive and pay for materials only when they require them.

There are a lot of interesting comments above. In many ways this is the tip of the iceberg of a broader discussion about how the procurement function brands itself. The story above about the recognition that is given to sales over procurement is sadly all too common in my experience. I think that it is pretty ground breaking for procurement person to be even in the running for overachiever of the year. 
 
There is an issue here of the internal marketing of procurement functions. Whilst we are a task orientated profession and would often like to be judged on what we do, ultimately we are actually judged on the perception of what has been done, which is influenced by the context and hence how we market ourselves.  
 
The initial catalyst for the article was to make the point that indirect, goods not for resale, non-core are all negatives. Using them is to allow us to define our selves in relation to something else, and with a possibly implicit implication that indirects is less important. The opportunity is to define ourselves in a positive sense of what we do and what we actually bring to the organisation, and I think negative terms do not do that justice. 
 
With no indirect procurement, the business is back to making a vast array of goods and services itself. This is equivalent to going back to a Victorian approach to business operation. Indirects also are critical to most businesses day to day operation - no IT or no electricity means no business nowadays, and there are many other illustrations. 
 
I believe that the decision to rename indirects is actually a decision to define what we are, what we contribute and to send a confident message to the wider business. This is about marketing of procurement internally, and helping the business recognise the importance of suppliers, and the effective sourcing and management of those suppliers, is critical to the success of nearly every business. I am not sure that we spend enough time marketing ourselves internally to make sure that our actions and contribution is recognised. That most businesses serially underinvest in procurement suggests to me that there is still much to do to get full appreciation! 
 
And 'confident' is the key word. At its heart, I would like to see us as a more confident profession making the case for what we do, and getting the according recognition. 
 
Do you think, as a profession, Procurement 'Markets' itself well (in front of the internal business)? 
 
If NO, what could (and should) we do better?

The profile will only raise when the profession understands where it sits in the value chain. Then the world of business schools may take notice. I've mentioned this previously - i think Prof Michael Porter gives us the perfect model - he even isolates procurement out as a discrete set of activities. 
 
What needs to go in hand with that is how his linkages concept contribute to competitive advantage - we need to link with primary and other support activites to move competitive advantage in the right direction. We have been too inwardly focussed to date. My view, anyway!

Unfortunately the value procurement can add – and has added in the past - is not celebrated enough and therefore not recognised as well as our counter parts (sales) successes. 
 
Every organisation I have worked for celebrated sales success on a regular basis – it was too said to ‘motivate’ the people… Let me ask you this, how many organisations celebrate their procurement success? 
 
As mentioned – I have never worked in an environment where procurement received the same attention as sales did. I have worked for a blue-chip organisation in Ireland and was lucky enough to be awarded runner-up for overachiever of the year, the winner was – it goes without saying – a sales person. 
 
I am proud to say that, I was the first buyer ever to be nominated and I didn’t expected that at all. 
 
What needs to happen that that changes? First – it needs to be understood that every pound/ dollar/ euro or whatever it is saved, is a pound increased profit. Secondly, we need to get away from the thinking that procurement is only about money. 
 
Procurement plays an important role in protecting the organisation against fraud, ensuring the CSR role is taken serious and to build up a brand image etc. 
 
In regards to your question – I guess the answer is yes and no – depends on where you sit and what the involved spend for the relevant organisation is. Some organisations have a higher indirect spend then direct spend. 
 
I like to see it this way: Direct and indirect are both important parts of procurement and some organisations use the term only to channel internal communication and focus, a bit like from IT to ICT. 
 
I am a strong believer that there needs to be a differentiation but the focus must be the same. Remember procurements ultimate goal is to serve the customer/ internal client and maximise the VFM (value for money) the organisation achieves.

I have used the term Corporate Supplies to describe Indirects, which in my opinion reflects in a better manner the nature and importance of these groups of items and services.

Indirect spend relates to the goods and services not directly related to the manufacturing process within a manufacturing facility. If one wants to add more respect to the Procurement Markets, Why call Suppliers, "Vendors"? Vendors sell Hot Dogs. If we want to have a professional conversation with a "Vendor" it's on a street corner. Let's call the companies we want to negotiate contracts with "Suppliers". Yes SAP needs to change its verbiage in this respect too.

Wow, from renaming indirect spend to the image of procurement professionals. This discussion is getting interesting.  
 
Indirect Spend: It really doesn’t matter to me what it is called, I perceive it as the greatest opportunity for savings within a company. Indirect spend is generally perceived as a necessary evil and probably is not getting the attention that it needs. Take a really good look at your indirect spend. You will most likely find some of the following: High priced entrenched vendors that are in place because it is easier for the buyer to call them then source a new one, Service contracts that were either negotiated badly or not at all, evergreen contracts from satellite offices with yearly price increases, fragmented spend that can be easily consolidated Etc. The opportunities are endless! 
 
Image of Procurement Professionals: I hate to say it but if you believe that you have a poor image, you probably do. Whose fault is that? 
 
Take a lesson from the sales people. Sales and marketing people will be the first to tell you how great their latest conquest was, how much sales are up, how much money they brought in Etc. Good for them. It is in their nature to do so. 
 
If you want to get recognition like the sales and marketing people, become a salesman. In fact you already are. If you are like me we spend countless hours selling our companies to prospective vendors and almost as much time selling the vendors to our internal clients. You should be spending some time selling yourself. 
 
I do it all the time. I will tell anyone who asks exactly what my department does and what it means to them. I carry a copy of my annual savings report with me at all times and put it out there for all to see. I will go over it, in detail, if someone is interested and explain to them how we could help them reduce spend. I tell the sales people how we increase their profits by reducing their overhead costs by (what else?), reducing indirect spend. Put your savings into perspective. One million dollars in savings at a 20% profit margin is equal to 5 million in sales. 
 
Make what you do exciting, get a buzz going. We occasionally invite internal stake holders to our reverse auctions. (Do this only when you know there will be a lot of vendor participation). Shut the door, get the crowd going and get a little loud. When someone asks you what was going on in there it’s time to whip out your savings report.

Eric raises an excellent point. I had one employment experience in an Indirect Purchasing environment and what I found was, the majority of human resources within the Purchasing group tended to get allocated to bigger bang type purchases - those requiring higher management approval. But I could not help but think given the sheer volume of Indirect transactions that we missed good opportunities for cost savings by not devoting more time and resources to the smaller dollar, repeat purchases. 
With respect to the sales aspect of our roles within the organization, Eric is spot on. I have never been in an organization where I was not challenged to prove my credibility and value to internal customers. Sometimes this education process took weeks, more often months, but I know I made an impact when internal customers, my requisitioners and often times end users, came to me for advice on how to handle a first time buy, or what suppliers to solicit for quotes. Personally, I do not see how our value to the stakeholder and much broader organization diminishes when we function in an Indirect vs. Direct Purchasing role, and it really lies with us to ensure that no one anywhere in the organization perpetuates that misconception.

Bravo Eric.....let your actions speak for themselves! Look at your current Purchasing or Supply Chain organization...it should be an exciting, energetic, dynamic department! If not, then the perception of being indirect is reality. 
 
Change it!

very well said Eric...It should be the indirect purchasing member or the manager to be aware or proud of what he is doing... I believe there is no global/ logical/or well-managed company, who will support "maverick purchases" in the year 2011, or just won't wish to reduce the operational costs or wish not to work systematically. Direct purchasing solutions are mostly found on eRP systems but indirect ...It requires much more experience, communication and network skills and self motivation etc...It requires much more "personal skills" and challenge, for the ones who devote themselves to their own progress as much as the company's progress...

Indirect cost control is as important as direct cost control, in some commodities its even more important ! Example if you buy the wrong capital equipment (usually handled by indirect purchasing dept) you could be stuck with costs and assets on your balance sheet for years! 
Capital equipment purchasing is a high risk area, get it wrong and you could screw up the business operating costs for years.Production asset utilization and up time are also tied into indirect costs, failing to keep the plant running is like running a car on three cylinders its not functioning at its best performance.

not only savings to be discussed, but innovation....Close relationship with sales teams for example, having the customers as vendors or just the opposite, the vendors as customers, great opportunities for win-win cases...

Absolutely. Innovation is the key. Another innovation that has happened to the spend management domain is the necessity of benchmarking for all the commodities, whether direct or indirect. Its a new approach which has a direct impact on the bottom line and helps companies manage their overall spend effectively.

I would suggest that you can't have innovation without having a strong relationship and a high level of trust with your supplier. Without both, the supplier has no reason to give you his/her innovative ideas......to potentially lose the business a year later. Would you?

sure, strong relationship and high level of trust...Just the outcome of networking and communication skills of the purchaser,"exceptional influencing skills" I would say, where "human factor" is highly compulsive, as well as the "company' s corporate profile and value in the market" of course.... It is the indirect purchaser who holds the pulse of the market mainlyi when compared with the direct purchasers, as "preferred vendors" are in charge in direct mainly, and on the other hand is the indirect sourcer to search, find out or implement a new vendor and the opportunities to be brought together...

Thank you for adding your comments to this now rather lively discussion. 
 
Quite a bit of this discussion still deals with creating a definition for the procurement community. Fundamentally I think we should take a step back and discuss how the term indirect procurement is branded in front of your primary customers - the business stakeholders we service and support (do they know what it means? Do they understand the value it can deliver?) and create a definition which positions positively in their mind. 
 
Further to Guy Strafford’s point, I recently spoke with the CPO of a FTSE 100 organisation who had the challenge of getting internal stakeholders to include procurement much earlier in the project planning process. Not only did they rebrand procurement internally (moving away from the legacy of supply based connotations associated with the ‘direct’ aspect) but they worked with the communications team to develop key messages and touch points to make sure all stakeholders were aware of the value procurement could return if included earlier in the process. 
 
The discussion to rename indirects shouldn’t be about how WE, the procurement community, categorise this element of spend but rather how this element of spend is branded and communicated with your stakeholders and customers in a language they understand (i.e. how do they define value – Savings? Innovation? Process re-engineering? Efficiency? More for Less? etc). 
 
Eric H and Marc C are spot on with their comments – In particular from Marc C, “Every organisation I have worked for celebrated sales success on a regular basis – it was too said to ‘motivate’ the people… Let me ask you this, how many organisations celebrate their procurement success?”. 
 
I have literally just walked out of a conversation with another FTSE 100 CPO who said shouting about your successes is one thing, having your stakeholders shout about your successes for you to other stakeholders is another - the old adage of word of mouth. 
 
So perhaps the initial question “Does the term 'Indirects' position this aspect of Procurement as secondary or unimportant?” really depends on the how this aspect of spend is currently perceived by your stakeholders – do they proactively come to you, including you at the start of all projects and understanding exactly the value procurement can deliver, or do you need to rebrand what procurement means to your business – name and all?

I believe that it is neither the internal stakeholder’s perception of procurement nor the labeling of indirect that holds them back. 
 
The majority of my internal customers don’t even know that spend is labeled as direct or indirect. It is on a much deeper level then either of these. 
 
I have spent the majority of my time selling my department’s services to internal stakeholders. Let’s face it, it is a whole lot easier dealing with a vendor then it is with an internal stakeholder. 
 
It all comes down to motivation. 
 
Vendors are highly motivated to sell you their services, materials, equipment etc. This is their primary function and their success depends on the sales that they make to you. 
 
It is the exact opposite with internal stakeholders. Their motivation is to perform at their primary function with enough effectiveness to maintain or increase their position within their company. It has nothing to do with the money that they are spending or the procurement department. Given the choice they will spend even more money to achieve success within their primary functions. This is all just basic human nature. 
 
Take this real life scenario: 
 
A project manager is working on a project with a very specific deadline. The PM’s success depends on meeting this deadline. The company that he has hired to work on the project (at a negotiated price) calls the PM and states that they will require more money for additional resources to meet the deadline. The PM authorizes the additional money. The project came in on time and on budget. The budget was created and approved months ago based on initial proposals with a 10% contingency. The PM gets a big pat on the back. 
 
If I went to the PM and stated that I could have saved him 27% on the cost of the project, do you think he would really care? More likely, the PM would perceive this as a huge risk to his success and reject the notion. 
 
How do you compete with success? The solution is simple and very effective. Make it easier for them to become even more successful. Master this and the stakeholders will be motivated to come to you.

Some company use NPI buying instead of Indirect procurement. Though the definition is different in different companies, it is the same important as direct procurement. SAP word is not good but most companies set different level of the suppliers - e.g. partner.

What I have found in the procurement business is that the purchasing staff negotiates and buys the direct materials from the supplier. Material not essential for resale and referred to as MRO is often purchased by the person needing the product. KD Boxes, packing supplies, pallets, racks, cleaning compounds, fork lifts, might come into this category. 
 
Usually procurement reserves a series of PO numbers for these MRO items and issues them upon request by the user.  
 
The dollar amount of the annual MRO budget will define its importance to the CFO and purchasing director.  
 
Senior Management should define the company MRO requirements as part of the budget process. The annual value and opportunity for cost saving thru value engineering and strategic procurement will define if it prudent to hire an MRO purchasing agent/buyer.

Every sector/company has different requirements. It all depends. It cannot be denied that in an automotive assembly, the direct boys rule the world and the indirect are seen as second class citizens. But this is only the surface. Spends like transport, energy, temp labour, marketing can be hugely important also in these companies.  
 
In logistics for example we deal only with indirects like warehousing rent, energy, transport, utilities etc.. and these categories are top priority.  
 
It often advisable to be at the core of a company so you are in a position to add as much possible value as you can, but like allways : in a good company, every job counts.  
 
So indirect is certainly not inferior. There are companies where it is all about indirect (eg banking, logistics, aviation.. ) but there are also companies where it is all about direct. The most important is to analyse the portfolio and to put resources where they add value.

Procurement or acquisition of goods, services and works and 'influenceable' spend does it for me

Does the term "indirect" position this aspect as secondary.... only to BOM managers and plant managers --- until the lights go out! 
 
There are many organizations, even "manufacturing companies", where the level of indirect spend surpasses the direct, particularly where production is outsourced , where raw inputs are not raw materials but services or intangibles, or where logistics costs are separated from production.  
 
I suppose the naming convention "direct vs indirect" has its beginnings in cost accounting, where determining the cost of unit production before allocations is an important metric of yield or production efficiency, but I find it useful to augment these with procurement metrics, such as category spend.  
 
And since all categories affect earnings; all are "direct" ------ contributors.

A lot of great articles, i have been doing supply chain for over 25 years and have my masters in procurement. Indirect is just one category in the many different categories in supply chain... (Direct, Transportation, material handling, buyers, etc.) As you look at spend you have really three main areas (their are more, but) Direct, Indirect and Transportation. Under each of these areas you have categories. Indirect encompases your G&A Areas, IT/ Telecom, Travel, Professsional Services (big category), MRO, Facilitiels, Energy, Fuels and capitial. There are sub categories to these as well. So many times these areas are not looked at in the same was as Direct or Transportation, but, when they are 40% of your overall spend or 35 to 40% of your G&A you have to address and have a vision established and strategy on how to get savings, while managing the supply base. A best in class company will be any where between 20 - 25% of your G&A. A strategy for one commodity, lets take IT, should look at 80% of your spend with 10 suppliers, and then you can manage your suppliers effectivly. Quarterly meetings based on the SLA's that you have incorporated into your Agreements. This is way more than discretionary and it is a different game than direct, your not just looking at the market to buy something, you have to understand the commodity, the terms and conditions and be able to negotiate effectivly. 
 
I apologize for any typos, but, I cant find my glasses....lol

With regard to the term "Indirect" - I am always amused at the language of finance intruding into the world of decision making. That may sound strange, but the term "Indirect" is a classical finance term that refers to spending that does not relate to the product that is being produced in a "direct" manner. My sarcasm regarding finance intruding into the world of decision making is the result of many years spent in the finance community and the may lessons learned that clearly demonstrates that cost management is not what finance does! Therefore its ability to facilitate decision making is totally misplaced. Just like cost accounting is terminology about how finance classifies cost for financial reporting purposes, so are the terms "Indirect" and "Direct" terms from finance for how to view spending monies. The truth is simple, we spend monies on "stuff"! Some of it goes into product, some of it does not, but it really doesn't matter to a professional in procurement. Our task is to optimize the spending of corporate monies while minimizing corporate risk.

Thank you, John. I am in total agreement with you.

I agree with John's comments, in our organization those terms are defined by Finance but in reality "indirect spend" under my resposability are "Corporate Cost".

My experience, so far, is that Indirect is treated with varying degrees of respect dependant upon the industry. Even what belongs to the category gets 'iffy' in some cases, such as the Construction Industry where indirect may be bought as part of direct spend. In a services industry, some things may be considered direct where a manufacturing organization might claim it be indirect. [But probably not MRO.] If I were to side, I suppose that I would rather campaign for better respect for the management of Indirect, keeping the term, but educating management on the importance of it. To further muddy the waters, many eProcurement applications claim to be good at one or the other [direct vs indirect] but not usually both. May the gods of Procurement smile upon them and give them courage to complete their packages and provide better means to manage a fuller line of control over a companies spend.

While "procurement is procurement", "spend is spend", and "savings is savings, direct spend is perceived as more important because you are talking about the "secret sauce" of the organization. Sometimes innovation in procurement is easier to implement in the indirect spend because the direct side is hesitant to mess with the "secret sauce". I agree with Abhishek that there is a Treasure House of savings for organizations on the indirect side. And innovative processes...such as reverse auctions...1) are easier to implement organizationally (perceived risk) and 2) produce potentially greater savings margins because the purchasing expertise (familiarity with purchase, specs, supply chain,etc.) is lower on the indirect side. Not because of the expertise/skill of individuals in the indirect procurement side, but due to the nature of the indirect spend.

As an LSS professional the first thing I would ask myself is; who's the customer? In the case of a procurement professional (direct or indirect) the customer is the organization and the organization benefits from an effective, knowledgeable and talented procurement team. It is unfortunate that some may consider an indirect procuremenet professional inferior, by means of their core products and/or services. In my world they would only be inferior if they are not meeting the objectives the organization has bestowed upon them.

I'm a HUGE fan of annual departmental "Road Shows" as a selling-your-services effort to get out in front of the internal customers and to seek new opportunities for the coming year. These 1/2 - 1 hour presentations identify cost savings that were truly attained and signed off by the department during the last year (lest you create side arguments about actual savings). They need to incorporate your customers lingo blended with your own procurement verbiage so you can mutually understand the benefits of your interactions. I've found by assuring these internal customers that savings will not be counted against them (at least not for my company) I can get them to proactively share more ideas and thereby save more money.

Cost effective essentials!

The person could be called BUYER and the function or activity should continue to be purchasing as we are spending when we are buying.

If you use terms internally within your company you can call it anything you want so that it sounds positive. When you use it with a Supplier you need to communicate in language they understand. Using something that can a different meaning to each party is a sure way to encounter problems. Most of the terms you mention are well defined cost accounting terms that are commonly used. If you negotiate cost using a bottoms-up cost model, Procurement people should know what they are and use them.

Internally, we use the terms Equipment, Supplies & Services (ESS) and Raw Materials (RM). I only use the terms "Direct" and "Indirect" when communicating to people outside of the firm, since no one else would know what ESS & RM stood for.

Purchasing and selling are two activities that are at the heart of every business, would anyone disagree? My job is to help my stakeholders see that investing time and energy in purchasing, a key business activity, leads to greater business success.  
 
 
 
Given how many stakeholders are involved in spending money in most businesses, the more I do to find a language that each stakeholder understands the greater the opportunity to work together and acheive success. 
 
 
 
Maybe 'indirect' and 'direct' work for our finance colleagues. For every other stakeholder it is a case of talking about how they work with suppliers/ agencies/ vendors/ contractors (or however else they describe the third parties they pay money to.) Likewise stakeholders in marketing, property, logistics, manufacturing, operations, facilities wouldn't want to think of themselves as of secondary importance so what sense is there in using the term indirect with them? 
 
 
 
One final point, since when did 'spend' become a noun rather than a verb? I talk to stakeholders about how much money we have paid and are going to pay to suppliers. I then find a lot of stakeholders attach a stronger emotion to these type of terms and as a result take a greater interest in what I do. Lets leave our jargon in the text books and business schools and instead talk the language which business stakeholders understand.