Main Finance Sample Report (2010)

Open Standards Research
Benchmarking Report
January 2010
Sample Report
© 2009 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Confidential

Table of Contents
Thank you for participating in this valuable benchmarking research. For information on benchmarking your organization's performance in
other critical process groups across the supply chain at no cost, visit www.apqc.org/sc, or call us at 800-776-9676.
Table of Contents
Executive Summary
Survey Scope and Demographics
Quantitative Data - Key Performance Indicators
Quantitative Data - Other Performance Indicators
Summary of Qualitative Information
About APQC
Instructions
To move through this report, please click on the table of contents items above or click on the tabs at the bottom of the page.
© 2009 APQC. ALL RIGHTS

If you
RESERVED.
would like additional or customized analysis, please contact APQC at 800-776-9676. Confidential
Executive Summary Note: Mock data provided for purposes of illustration.
Best Practices, Business Drivers, and Gap Analysis

Crossing enterprise, geographic, political, and functional boundaries, supply chains are incredibly difficult beasts to manage. To make any kind of progress, company leaders need to understand how their
supply chain is performing in comparison to industry peers as well as best-in-class companies. Once they know how they are doing, they can set goals that are appropriate for their market strategy and
identify the best practices that they need to implement in order to achieve those goals.
From a functional perspective, every supply chain planner needs to be able to report the impact that their initiatives have on improving supply chain efficiency. Many organizations have never taken a
comprehensive look at how their supply chains are performing against competitors. In such cases, supply chain benchmarking can unearth opportunities that could save a company millions or tens of millions
of dollars.
The following charts highlight key performance indicators related to supply chain planning in the categories of cost effectiveness, process efficiency, and cycle time for your organization compared to all
participants.
Category of Measurement Key Performance Indicator

• Cost Effectiveness: Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue
• Cost Effectiveness: Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue
• Process Efficiency: Number of FTEs for the supply chain planning function per $1 billion revenue
• Cycle Time: Cash-to-cash cycle time in days
Special Note: Any charts below lacking a bar for "Your Site" indicates inadequate data was provided to calculate, report, or chart this metric for your organization. To update your data submission, please
contact APQC.
Effective supply chain planning requires making cost-conscious decisions. In addition to being cost competitive, the goal of supply chain planning is to establish a supply chain that is both responsive and
resilient. The following chart shows how your organization compares to the overall top, median, and bottom performers in terms of demand/supply planning costs.
Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue
Your Site $12.00
Top Performers $6.90
Median $8.21
Bottom Performers $12.76
$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00
© 2009 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. If you would like additional or customized analysis, please contact APQC at 800-776-9676. Confidential
Because supply chain planning can impact the cost of the entire supply chain, it is important to look at total supply chain management costs. As the benefits of other internal cost-cutting efforts taper off,
more corporate executives are beginning to understand that some of the biggest opportunities for operational efficiency and cost savings lie outside of their organization within their supply chain.
Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue
Your Site $67.00
Top Performers $17.07
Median $61.40
Bottom Performers $139.31
$- .0
0 00 00 00 .0
0 00 .0
0
.0
0
0 0. 0. 0. 00 0. 40 60
$2 $4 $6 $8 $1 $1
2
$1 $1
When striving to improve process efficiency, the supply chain planning function should seek to maximize the output per full-time equivalent (FTE) to minimize the personnel needed. Many organizations are
using technology to help drive real-time inventory visibility with suppliers and demand visibility with customers, while decreasing the amount of human intervention required.
Number of FTEs for the supply chain planning function per $1 billion revenue
Your Site
Top Performers 2.3
Median 16.7
Bottom Performers 57.5
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Cash-to-cash cycle time looks at the number of days of working capital that an organization has tied up in managing its supply chain. The faster the cash-to-cash cycle, the fewer days that an organization's
cash is unavailable for use.
Cash-to-cash cycle time in days
Your Site 167.0
Top Performers 43.9
Median 69.0
Bottom Performers 107.0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180
The following table highlights your site's performance using red, yellow, green. Green indicates performance equal to or greater than the top quartile, yellow indicates performance in the second or third
quartile, and red indicates performance equal to or below the bottom quartile.
Measurement Category Key Performance Indicator Your Site Top Median Bottom
Performers Performers
Cost Effectiveness Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue $12.00 $6.90 $8.21 $12.76
Cost Effectiveness Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue $67.00 $17.07 $61.40 $139.31
Process Efficiency Number of FTEs for the supply chain planning function per $1 billion NR 2.3 16.7 57.5
revenue
Cycle Time Cash-to-cash cycle time in days 167.0 43.9 69.0 107.0
To drill down into the various elements of Supply Chain costs, performance, and effectiveness, your organization should consider completing the other APQC Supply Chain benchmarking surveys:
Procurement (www.apqc.org/sc/proc)
Manufacturing (www.apqc.org/sc/mfg)
Logistics (www.apqc.org/sc/log)
Contact Us
For more information, please contact the Research Services team:
Phone: 800-776-9676 (outside U.S. +1-713-681-4020)
E-mail: OSBC@apqc.org
Survey Scope and Demographics - Supply Chain Planning
Process Classification Framework

The foundation of the APQC's OSBC research is the Process Classification Framework, or PCF (www.apqc.org/pcf). APQC and its members
developed the PCF, which is updated by a global advisory council of industry leaders. As a common language, the PCF allows organizations to see
and discuss their activities from an industry-neutral viewpoint. Regardless of size, industry, or geography, organizations can use the PCF to
benchmark and improve processes.
The PCF organizes operating and management processes into 12 enterprise-level categories, including process groups and more than 1,500
processes and associated activities. Organizations can then discuss an activity and know its exact parameters. This benchmarking report focuses
on PCF Category 4 Deliver Products and Services.
The following processes and activities are included in the scope of this survey.
4.1.1 Manage demand for products and services

4.1.1.1 Develop baseline forecasts
4.1.1.2 Collaborate with customers
4.1.1.3 Develop consensus forecast
4.1.1.4 Allocate available to promise
4.1.2 Create materials plan
4.1.2.1 Create unconstrained plan
4.1.2.2 Collaborate with supplier and contract manufacturers
4.1.2.3 Identify critical materials and supplier capacity
4.1.2.4 Generate constrained plan
4.1.3 Schedule production
4.1.3.1 Generate site level plan
4.1.3.2 Manage work-in-progress inventory
4.1.3.3 Collaborate with suppliers
4.1.3.4 Generate and execute detail schedule
© 2009 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. If you would like additional or customized analysis, please contact APQC at 800-776-9676.
Confidential
*Note: Sample size only applies to organizations that responded to this question in this particular data set.
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Confidential
Quantitative Data - Key Performance Indicators Note: Mock data provided for purposes of illustration.
Your
Organization
All Participants
Bottom Top
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value Your Percentile N Performer Median Performer GAP
Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness $20.00 18.53% 75 $15.52 $12.16 $9.85 $10.15
Inventory carrying cost as a percentage of average annual inventory value Cost Effectiveness 30.00% 51.62% 55 42.52% 31.00% 15.30% 14.70%
Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness
Cash-to-cash cycle time in days Cycle Time
Number of FTEs for the supply chain planning function per $1 billion revenue Process Efficiency
Your
Organization
All Participants Peer: Industry
Bottom Top
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value Industry Peer N Performer Median Performer GAP
Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness $20.00 Pharmaceutical 12 $13.86 $11.54 $9.34 $10.66
Inventory carrying cost as a percentage of average annual inventory value Cost Effectiveness 30.00% Pharmaceutical 9 55.32% 29.23% 12.63% 17.37%
Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness Pharmaceutical
Cash-to-cash cycle time in days Cycle Time Pharmaceutical
Number of FTEs for the supply chain planning function per $1 billion revenue Process Efficiency Pharmaceutical
Your
Organization
Peer: Industry Peer: Revenue Range
Bottom
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value Revenue Range Peer N Performer Median Top Performer
Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness $20.00 Between $500 Million and $1 Billion 26 $14.23 $11.64 $8.23
Inventory carrying cost as a percentage of average annual inventory value Cost Effectiveness 30.00% Between $500 Million and $1 Billion 22 40.23% 30.45% 17.34%
Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness Between $500 Million and $1 Billion
Cash-to-cash cycle time in days Cycle Time Between $500 Million and $1 Billion
Number of FTEs for the supply chain planning function per $1 billion revenue Process Efficiency Between $500 Million and $1 Billion
Your
Organization
Peer: Revenue Range Peer: Region
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value GAP

Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness $20.00 $11.77
Inventory carrying cost as a percentage of average annual inventory value Cost Effectiveness 30.00% 12.66%
Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness
Cash-to-cash cycle time in days Cycle Time
Number of FTEs for the supply chain planning function per $1 billion revenue Process Efficiency
Your
Organization
Bottom Top
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value Region Peer N Performer Median Performer GAP
Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness $20.00 N/S America 40 $14.52 $11.64 $7.23 $12.77
Inventory carrying cost as a percentage of average annual inventory value Cost Effectiveness 30.00% N/S America 35 45.24% 27.34% 16.43% 13.57%
Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue Cost Effectiveness N/S America
Cash-to-cash cycle time in days Cycle Time N/S America
Number of FTEs for the supply chain planning function per $1 billion revenue Process Efficiency N/S America
Quantitative Data - Other Performance Indicators Note: Mock data provided for purposes of illustration.
Your
Organization
All Participants
Bottom Top
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value Your Percentile N Performer Median Performer GAP
Cost of goods sold as a percentage of revenue Cost Effectiveness 55.23% 20.23% 175 54.23% 43.26% 39.21% 16.02%
Finished goods inventory turn rate Process Efficiency 17.00 52.45% 100 9.25 16.35 24.26 7.26
Return on assets Process Efficiency 74.32% 74.32% 90 10.23% 54.26% 76.23% 1.91%
Shrinkage as a percentage of total revenue Process Efficiency

Average monthly national forecast error measured by the mean absolute percentage error
(MAPE) Process Efficiency
Average monthly shipping location forecast error measured by the mean absolute
percentage error (MAPE) Process Efficiency
Average monthly product family forecast error measured by the mean absolute
percentage error (MAPE) Process Efficiency
Key customer growth Process Efficiency
Your
Organization
All Participants Peer: Industry
Bottom Top
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value Industry Peer N Performer Median Performer GAP
Cost of goods sold as a percentage of revenue Cost Effectiveness 55.23% Pharmaceutical 17 56.26% 41.62% 37.95% 17.28%
Finished goods inventory turn rate Process Efficiency 17.00 Pharmaceutical 9 8.34 14.62 22.64 5.64
Return on assets Process Efficiency 74.32% Pharmaceutical 11 9.75% 50.57% 70.43% 3.89%
Shrinkage as a percentage of total revenue Process Efficiency Pharmaceutical

(MAPE) Process Efficiency Pharmaceutical
percentage error (MAPE) Process Efficiency Pharmaceutical
percentage error (MAPE) Process Efficiency Pharmaceutical
Key customer growth Process Efficiency Pharmaceutical
Your
Organization
Peer: Industry Peer: Revenue Range
Bottom
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value Revenue Range Peer N Performer Median Top Performer GAP
Between $500 Million and $1
Cost of goods sold as a percentage of revenue Cost Effectiveness 55.23% Billion 13 50.43% 38.62% 26.34% 28.89%
Finished goods inventory turn rate Process Efficiency 17.00 Billion 16 6.43 12.64 19.75 2.75
Return on assets Process Efficiency 74.32% Billion 11 15.74% 45.37% 66.74% 7.58%
Shrinkage as a percentage of total revenue Process Efficiency Billion
Average monthly national forecast error measured by the mean absolute percentage error Between $500 Million and $1
(MAPE) Process Efficiency Billion
Average monthly shipping location forecast error measured by the mean absolute Between $500 Million and $1
percentage error (MAPE) Process Efficiency Billion
Average monthly product family forecast error measured by the mean absolute Between $500 Million and $1
percentage error (MAPE) Process Efficiency Billion
Key customer growth Process Efficiency Billion
Your
Organization
Bottom Top
Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value Region Peer N Performer Median Performer GAP
Cost of goods sold as a percentage of revenue Cost Effectiveness 55.23% N/S America 102 53.74% 40.26% 36.34% 18.89%
Finished goods inventory turn rate Process Efficiency 17.00 N/S America 83 12.63 17.76 22.91 5.91
Return on assets Process Efficiency 74.32% N/S America 64 9.82% 44.27% 70.49% 3.83%
Shrinkage as a percentage of total revenue Process Efficiency N/S America

(MAPE) Process Efficiency N/S America
percentage error (MAPE) Process Efficiency N/S America
percentage error (MAPE) Process Efficiency N/S America
Key customer growth Process Efficiency N/S America
Summary of Qualitative Information Note: Mock data provided for purposes of illustration.
Qualitative Questions: Select Only One Response

Your Response
Question Question Value Response Rate N
59.0080 Which of the following best describes the customer strategy for your business entity? (Select only one.) Cost leadership 15.0% 178
Product/service differentiation 40.0% 178
Focus on the customer X 40.0% 178
NR 5.0% 178
59.0090 Which of the following functions best describes the role your business entity performs in your overall organization? (Select Headquarters X 25.0% 178
only one.)
Shared services center/centralized processing
center 40.0% 178
Manufacturing/operating unit 25.0% 178
NR 5.0% 178
59.0100 Which of the following terms best describes the market conditions in which your business entity mainly operates? (Select only Relatively new, emerging market 15.0% 178
one.) Growth market 26.0% 178
Mature market X 36.0% 178
Generally in decline 21.0% 178
NR 2.0% 178
59.0110 Which of the following best describes the structure of the supply chain planning operation with respect to your organization Centralized
overall? (Check one box only.) Decentralized
Other (Specify)
NR
59.0120 Regardless of whether your supply chain planning operation is centralized or decentralized, has your organization adopted Yes
enterprise-wide systems or policies to standardize this function? No
NR
59.0170 What is your business entity's primary business activity? Producer/manufacturer
Retailer/wholesaler
Services provider
NR
59.0190 Does your site have a formal Sales and Operations Planning (S&OP) process? Yes
No
NR
59.0210 To what extent do the following statements describe your site's S&OP process? a. Formal meetings with sales, marketing, and No extent at all
supply chain operations To little extent
Some extent
To significant extent
To a very great extent
NR
59.0210 To what extent do the following statements describe your site's S&OP process? b. Demand and supply plans are formally No extent at all
aligned and agreed upon across business functions (consensus-based forecasting) To little extent
Some extent
NR
59.0210 To what extent do the following statements describe your site's S&OP process? c. External demand collaboration with No extent at all
customers To little extent
Some extent
NR
Your Response
59.0210 To what extent do the following statements describe your site's S&OP process? d. External supply planning collaboration with No extent at all
suppliers To little extent
Some extent
NR
59.0210 To what extent do the following statements describe your site's S&OP process? e. Supported by integrated demand and supply No extent at all
planning applications To little extent
Some extent
NR
59.0210 To what extent do the following statements describe your site's S&OP process? f. Transportation management is optimized No extent at all
based upon the integrated demand/supply plans To little extent
Some extent
NR
59.0220 Which of the following best describes your business entity's primary capability model? (Select only one. Place an "X" in the Build-to-Stock
box that corresponds to your answer.) This question must be answered in order to proceed. Required. Build-to-Order
Engineer-to-Order
Retail
NR
59.0350 Please indicate the extent to which each of the supply chain practices has been adopted at your business entity? (Select one Not adopted
only in each row.) a. Sharing risks across a network, rather than concentrating them in a single enterprise. Somewhat adopted
Widely adopted
NR
only in each row.) b. Rapid response to changes in market conditions. Somewhat adopted
Widely adopted
NR
only in each row.) c. Maximizing variable supply chain costs to be aligned with revenues. Somewhat adopted
Widely adopted
NR
only in each row.) d. "Real-time" information transparency inside and outside the enterprise. Somewhat adopted
Widely adopted
NR
59.0360 Which of the following best describes the system used in the process "Demand planning"? (Select only one system.) Manual/spreadsheet
Internally developed
SAP
Oracle
PeopleSof
GEAC
Baan
J.D. Edwards
Other (Describe in comments box.)
NR
Your Response
59.0370 Which of the following best describes the system used in the process "Production scheduling"? (Select only one system.) Manual/spreadsheet
SAP
Oracle
PeopleSof
GEAC
Baan
J.D. Edwards
NR
59.0380 Which of the following best describes the system used in the process "Inventory planning & replenishment"? (Select only one Manual/spreadsheet
system.) Internally developed
SAP
Oracle
PeopleSof
GEAC
Baan
J.D. Edwards
NR
59.0390 Which of the following best describes the system used in the process "Warehouse management"? (Select only one system.) Manual/spreadsheet
SAP
Oracle
PeopleSof
GEAC
Baan
J.D. Edwards
NR
59.0400 Which of the following best describes the system used in the process "Transportation management"? (Select only one system.) Manual/spreadsheet
SAP
Oracle
PeopleSof
GEAC
Baan
J.D. Edwards
NR
59.0410 Indicate whether each of the listed business processes have been adopted at your business entity. For those that have been Not Adopted
adopted, please select whether they have been implemented via conventional electronic data interchange (EDI) or have been Adopted, EDI
implemented via Web/Internet-enabled technologies including Web-enabled EDI. a. Sharing visibility on inventory and demand with
customers
Adopted, Web/Internet-Enabled Technologies
NR
implemented via Web/Internet-enabled technologies including Web-enabled EDI. b. Sharing visibility on inventory and demand with
suppliers
NR
implemented via Web/Internet-enabled technologies including Web-enabled EDI. c. Continuous replenishment with customers
NR
Your Response
implemented via Web/Internet-enabled technologies including Web-enabled EDI. d. Continuous replenishment with suppliers
NR
implemented via Web/Internet-enabled technologies including Web-enabled EDI. e. Collaborative planning with customers
NR
implemented via Web/Internet-enabled technologies including Web-enabled EDI. f. Collaboraive planning with suppliers
NR
Qualitative Questions: Select All Responses That Apply

Your Response N
Question Question Value Response Rate
59.0180 Which of the following does your business entity regard as its top three objectives? (Select up to three options.) Increased profitability
Optimize inventory
Increased customer responsiveness/service

Increased revenue
Improved quality
Innovation
Reduced cost
Reduced cycle time
Increase market share
59.0200 If yes, what functions within your organization are involved in the S&OP process? (Check all that apply.) Manufacturing
Purchasing
Logistics
Sales and Marketing
Finance
Research and Development
Information Technology
Other
59.0330 How has your political/economic uncertainty impacted your business entity's supply chain efforts over the past 5 years? Increased lead times
(Select all that apply.) Increased costs
Decreased sales
Increased sales
No impact
Other
59.0340 Your business entity's inventory planning is based on which of the following? (Select all that apply) Volume
Customer sales
Geography
Category/product group
Margin
Market share
About APQC
APQC is the leading resource for performance analytics, best practices, process improvement, and knowledge management. The organization's
research studies, benchmarking databases, and renowned Knowledge Base provide managers with intelligence to transform their organizations. A
member-based nonprofit founded in 1977, APQC serves over 750 of the Fortune Global 1000 companies and numerous government organizations.
For information, visit www.apqc.org or call +1-713-681-4020.
How to Use the Open Standards Report

To help your organization gain the greatest value from its custom Open Standards Research report, APQC has outlined some simple and effective
ways to leverage the findings.
Reviewing Your Open Standards Report
When you receive your benchmarking report, set aside a block of time to read through it in its entirety. Note any questions you would like to pose
to the APQC research team for clarification or additional information. You can contact the Open Standards Research help desk by phone at 800-
776-9676 or +1-713-681-4020 and by e-mail at OSBC@apqc.org.
Stakeholder Review Session
Conducting a review session with key stakeholders is an excellent way to develop and gain support for improvement initiatives. Some of the most
common ways that organizations leverage Open Standards Research reports in their stakeholder review sessions are:
• to set goals as part of the annual budgeting and planning process;
• to identify and prioritize improvement projects;
• to compare performance and business practices across multiple internal units;
• to learn about and adapt best practices from top performers;
• to incorporate metrics into businesses cases to support restructuring, merger, or outsourcing evaluations;
• to provide performance data for common frameworks or methodologies such as Six Sigma; and
• to establish a baseline prior to a technology implementation.

If you
RESERVED.
About APQC
Here’s how three past participants leveraged the information in their reports:
• A building products manufacturer held a two-day event with leaders from various functional areas to discuss the data. The company coupled the
Open Standards Research report with customer feedback to plan improvements. Over the course of two days, the company spent 20 hours
reviewing findings and developing a list of 20 improvement projects.
• International Truck & Engine used several reports to facilitate its annual planning process. A team reviewed the data, flagged improvement areas,
and set goals for the next year. The organization identified between five and 10 action items for each Open Standards Research report it completed.
• Working with a consulting firm, Thomas Steel Strip used the Open Standards Research report as a foundation for its process improvement plan.
The team created a matrix of its key measures, customized some calculations, and conducted work sessions to identify improvements. As a result of
the follow-on activities, the supply chain area reduced finished goods inventory by almost 50 percent and increased inventory turns, allowing for
lower inventory levels and faster delivery.
Here’s what participants had to say about their Open Standards Research reports:
• “I reviewed six or seven key points [from the report] internally with a group. The company comparisons were very relevant. We identified about
25 percent of the [company comparison] information for further internal discussion.”
• “We’ve added the findings to our benchmarking measurement program that we use for program review, course correction, and feedback
throughout the organization.”

If you
RESERVED.

Main Finance Sample Report (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Main Finance Sample Report (2010)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Main Finance Sample Report (2010)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Open Standards Research

© 2009 APQC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. Confidential

© 2009 APQC. ALL RIGHTS

Best Practices, Business Drivers, and Gap Analysis

Category of Measurement Key Performance Indicator

Demand/supply planning costs per $1,000 revenue

Your Site $12.00

Top Performers $6.90

Bottom Performers $12.76

$- $2.00 $4.00 $6.00 $8.00 $10.00 $12.00 $14.00

Supply chain management costs per $1,000 revenue

Your Site $67.00

Top Performers $17.07

Bottom Performers $139.31

Top Performers 2.3

Bottom Performers 57.5

Cash-to-cash cycle time in days

Your Site 167.0

Top Performers 43.9

Bottom Performers 107.0

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180

Process Classification Framework

4.1.1 Manage demand for products and services

Metric Name Metric Category Metric Value GAP

Shrinkage as a percentage of total revenue Process Efficiency

Key customer growth Process Efficiency

Shrinkage as a percentage of total revenue Process Efficiency Pharmaceutical

Key customer growth Process Efficiency Pharmaceutical

Shrinkage as a percentage of total revenue Process Efficiency N/S America

Key customer growth Process Efficiency N/S America

Qualitative Questions: Select Only One Response

Qualitative Questions: Select All Responses That Apply

Increased customer responsiveness/service

How to Use the Open Standards Report

Reviewing Your Open Standards Report

Stakeholder Review Session

© 2009 APQC. ALL RIGHTS

© 2009 APQC. ALL RIGHTS

You might also like