Pulse of Procurement 2014 ZYCUS

8/11/2019 Pulse of Procurement 2014 ZYCUS

1/32

Pulse of Procurement 2014


2/32

Page 2 | 2014 Zycus Inc. All rights reserved.

INTRODUCTION

Dear Colleague,

Zycus is pleased to present its Pulse of Procurement 2014 report on the state of procurement performance and technology. The research

is part of an ongoing Zycus initiative to comprehend enterprise procurement challenges and best practices around the globe.

Having begun this research series back in 2011, we are now able to look beyond current snapshots into emerging trends as enterprise

strategic procurement functions continue to evolve and gain in maturity. We are greatly excited to observe that, after many years of

intense focus on fixing old problems, procurement appears to be moving into a new phase characterized by innovation in which

information gets transformed into competitive business intelligence, sourcing and procurement activities become more forward-focused

and predictive and the scope of procurements performance contributions expands into many areas beyond purchase costs and process

efficiency. To achieve all of this, of course, procurement needs a new level of technology enablement. It needs integrated automation

technology that:

Expands team productivity and frees talent for the kinds of creative thinking that only human minds can accomplish.

Shares information seamlessly and ensures one version of the truth.

Makes it very easy to ask new, innovative questions and find accurate answers rapidly and from anywhere, with just a few clicks or

finger taps.

At Zycus, we are passionate about building solutions that combine seamless integration of sourcing and procurement processes, state-of-

the-art functionality and ease of use along with superior responsiveness from our teams to help customers achieve their ever-evolving

business performance objectives. We are driven by these principles and have invested heavily in building a complete suite of integrated

procurement solutions from the ground up!

We hope you find this report useful and instructive as you map your own journey to better business performance.

Aatish Dedhia

CEO, Zycus Inc.


3/32

2014 Zycus Inc. All rights reserved. | Page 3

CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY & DEMOGRAPHICS................................................................................................................................................... 4

PROCUREMENT PAIN AREAS FOR 2014...........................................................................................................................................................5Enterprise procurement mandate ........................................................................................................ ..................................................................................6

Top procurement pain points for 2014 .................................................................................................. ................................................................................7

How procurement sees business intelligence evolving in the coming five years ....................................................................................................... 8

STATE OF PROCUREMENT (PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS) ......................................................................................................... 11Strategic maturity .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 12

Spend under management (SUM)......................................................................................................................................................................................... 13

Cost savings ................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................................... 14

Contract compliance ................................................................................................................................................................. ............................................... 15

Sourcing and order cycle times .......................................................................................................................................................................... ................... 16

PROCUREMENT TECHNOLOGY TRENDS........................................................................................................................................................ 19Investment and interest levels by major solution sets ................................................................................................................................. .................. 20

Primary platform configurations: what procurement has versus what it really wants .......................................................................................... 22Technology adoption & use benchmarks ........................................................................................................................................................................... 24

Technology utilization benchmarks ................................................................................................................................................................. .................. 26

TECHNOLOGY IMPACT & WISH LIST................................................................................................................................................................. 29Successful tactics for driving procurement technology adoption & use .................................................................................................................... 30

Sweet spot for procurement technology selection .......................................................................................................................................................... 31

ABOUT ZYCUS................................................................................................................................................................ .................................................. 32


4/32

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Zycus Pulse of Procurement 2014study encompasses input from more than 300

procurement executives and professionals with demographic characteristics shown on

this page.

BIG OBSERVATIONS FROM THIS YEARS STUDY

The rate at which corporations seem to be minting new enterprise strategic

procurement groups has come to a virtual standstill over the past 2-3 years. This

may signify saturation for procurement strategic transformation or simply reflect a

shift in C-Suite attention away from defensive to more offensive business prioritiesas economic recovery continues. Either way, CPOs who wish to continue expanding

their spheres of influence may need to change or raise their games.

Procurement organizations continue to advance in placing additional spend under

management, obtaining compliance to preferred supply contracts and saving

money for their companies, but a majority still lingers in the lower performance

tiers for cumulative cost-savings delivery and many are still encountering barriers

in the big transition from occasional to more systematic types of performance

wins.

Investment in procurement process automation and information technology

persists with solutions such as Contract Management and Spend Analysis nearing

ubiquity. Nonetheless, procurement pros say their overall technology profiles are

far from ideal, with most looking for greater integration among solutions in order

to yield higher quality, more synthesized and predictive business intelligence.

High-performing procurement organizations show notably stronger technology

adoption, use and utilization rates than lower performers (p25). Look to p30 of this

report to see how they are accomplishing this.


BY REVENUE>$5 billion ...........................................33%

$2 bil - $5 bil .....................................29%$500 mil to $2 bil ............................ 18%


5/32

PROCUREMENTPAIN AREAS FOR 2014


6/32

Since Zycus began its Pulse of Procurementresearch seriesseveral years ago, the proportion of business enterprisesauthorizing global procurement teams to take control of

corporate spending has not moved from seven in 10. While its

possible this represents a saturation point for procurement

strategic transformation that is, some 30% of corporate

leaders will NEVER be persuaded to invest in procurement-

powered business performance improvement it may also be a

function of shifting economic winds, with C-Suite players simply

refocusing on top- versus bottom line-boosting investmentsand activities. As long as global economic recovery and growth

persist through the next several years, procurement leaders

looking to continue expanding their spheres of influence should

probably be planning to pursue more top-line enhancing activities

such as:

Driving supplier performance improvement and supply-risk

identification and mitigation.

Identifying and cultivating top-performing suppliersfor collaborative innovation and new product & service

development.

Writing contracts creatively to share (vs. shift) risk.

Pursue most-favored or exclusive customer status with

suppliers identified as critical to market position and/or

capable of conferring competitive advantage.


Yes : 71%

No: 21%

N/A: 8%

Could the C-Suite be losing interest in procurement-ledbusiness performance improvement?

Does procurement have a mandate tomanage corporate spending?


7/32


Investment in procurement technology continues to rise,but, when Zycus asks procurement professionals to citetheir biggest pain points for 2014, top vote getters are

internal and external information quality.

At first read, one might surmise that procurement

technology is failing to deliver the quality of information

procurement needs. On the contrary, though, findings

from other parts of the study suggest it is less about

technology failing to deliver, more about enterprisestrategic procurement teams dramatically raising and

changing their standards for information (see page 8).

While procurement continues to wrestle with longstanding

challenges of performance measurement and driving

corporate cultural change toward more disciplined,

competitive and fact-driven spending behaviors,

there also appears to be substantial focus emerging

on obtaining greater adoption, use & utilization of

procurement technology. This trend is investigated ingreater detail beginning on page 24 of this report.

Internal info quality / 47%

External info quality / 37%

Performance measurement & managementsystems / 35%

Corporate organization, governance& culture / 33%

Technology adoption & use / 31%

Technology utilization / 27%

Contract compliance / 27%

Talent/skills / 24%

Technology stack/infrastructure / 23%

Procurement process compliance / 15%

Procurement hungers for better quality biz intelligence


8/32


Big Data fever strikes procurement function

Forward-looking &predictive

Globalin scope

Integratedw/external

intelligence&

Capableof being

combined forreporting

Credible& valid

&

Timely &up-to-date

Granular/detailed

57%

Integratedacross

processes

Mobile

Protected/secure

41%

35%34%

29%

24%22%

19%

8%

Capable ofbeing

shared w/other

enterprises

Two decades ago, few Chief Procurement Officers could do more than offer vague estimates of total corporate spending. They hadvirtually zero insight into spending at category or supplier levels and no useful means for evaluating procurement performance incontext of external or competitive market information. But, while huge strides have been made in all these areas, rather than satisfying

CPOs and their teams, the improvements seem to have awakened a hunger for more, bigger, faster, better business intelligence. Call it Big

Data for procurement. Here is how procurement pros vote in 2014 when asked how they might complete the following sentence (multiple

responses allowed): In the coming five years, our procurement information needs to become more....?


9/32


If you could ask for one innovation to make you moreeffective in your job, what would it be?


10/32


11/32

STATE OF PROCUREMENT(PERFORMANCE BENCHMARKS)


12/32

Asked to self rate for strategic procurement maturity, the Pulse of Procurement 2014study finds very little has changed in two years,with the top two categories for maturity gaining only a single point between 2012 and 2014. And, while the measure is relativelyimprecise, it reveals persistent frustration among procurement pros in crossing the great divide between sporadic performance wins and

more systematic, sustainable and diverse sorts of business-value contributions by procurement. There are dozens of potential variables

holding procurement back; a look into differentiators across a series of procurement KPIs suggests that prominent factors include:

Essential procurement technology configurations.

Weak adoption & inconsistent use of available procurement technology, especially among

distributed procurement personnel, spend and other keystakeholders.


Starting/deliveringearly wins

Gainingmomentum

Extendinginfluence

Systematicallydelivering

wins

Globalbest-in-

class

14%

24% 25%

32%

5%

Leap into top maturity tier continues to elude manyprocurement teams

Top 2 tiers

gain only 1-ptfrom 2012

study{


13/32

While two-thirds of procurement pros remain reluctant to describe their organizations as tops for maturity, they are continuingto expand influence, with the percentage of companies placing themselves into the top two performance tiers for spend undermanagement (SUM) rising six points between 2012 and 2014. This advancement reflects continued

inroads by procurement into some of the more complex indirect and services spend categories,

including contingent labor and consulting; marketing, advertising and communications; legal,

financial services and so forth. Two key observations:

Persistently low SUM companies are more than 3X more likelythan high SUM companies to

be relying primarily on homegrown procurement information technology.

Companies in the top echelon for procurement SUM show substantially higher

adoption & useof procurement technology among both decentralized

procurement personnel and spend stakeholders.


14/32


The upper echelon for cost savings performance also gained six points between 2012 and 2014, but the largest percentage ofprocurement organizations still falls into low mid- and low performance tiers, having documented cumulative cost savings (by theirown measures) at something less than 10% of total corporate spending. Two procurement technology-related observations:

More than half (55%) of low savers use primarily homegrown procurement information technology while 27% rely mainly on

ERP technology compared to 18% who have invested in

professionally developed, dedicated procurement solutions.

By contrast, some 43% of companies in the highest cost

savings echelon use dedicated procurement technologyapplications with some 80% in that group using

integrated procurement technology suites(versus

mixing solutions from multiple providers).


15/32


Despite being ranked as a top-three pain point by one in three procurement pros this year, the weighted average estimate for contractcompliance has risen 14 points since 2011 (note, 2011 is the last time Zycus benchmarked this metric; there is no comparable figure for2012). What is more, the percentage of procurement pros placing their companies into one of the top two tiers for contract compliance

jumped 11 points over the same time span. Once again, there are noteworthy

distinctions in terms of procurement technology with:

Low compliance companies being 4X more likely than high compliance

companies to be using mostly homegrown solutions.

High compliance companies reporting procurement technologyadoption & use among spend stakeholders at a weighted average of

50% compared to just 22% among low compliance companies.


16/32


This year, Zycus has added new benchmarkKPIs for sourcing and order cycle times tothe study. Weighted averages are shown in the

table on this page while detailed distributions

among the study population are shown in

charts on page 17.

It was hypothesized that companies using

e-Sourcing and/or Contract Management

solutions would display shorter sourcingcycle times. This proves true, although

more so for simpler spending categories.

Companies using either e-Sourcing or

Contract Management solutions report

sourcing cycle times that are, on average,

two weeks shorterfor simple categories, one week shorterfor complex and relatively the same for services categories. Of note is

that this simple testing does not account for how companies actually apply their solutions (that is, they may or may not be using them

frequently for all types of spend categories), so these results, while suggestive, should be interpreted with some caution. Nor does the

testing account for possible time shifting within strategic sourcing processes. For example, with sophisticated bid analytics capabilities

embedded in e-Sourcing solutions, companies are quite likely to be increasing the time they spend on analysis especially in complexcategories and achieving improved outcomes in terms of costs and other favorable contract terms.

It was also hypothesized that companies using procure-to-pay (P2P) solutions would display shorter order cycle times compared

to companies not using procurement process automation solutions. For simple categories, companies with P2P in place show

weighted average order cycle times roughly half as longas companies not using P2P (three versus six days on average). For complex

categories, the improvement is less dramatic (13 versus 16 days in total). For services, the improvement is 11 versus 13 days. Again,

though, these simple tabulations account only for the presence of P2P solutions and not for sophistication of solution deployment.

Pulse 2014 intros new benchmarks for sourcingand order cycle times

Simple Complex Services

Weightedavg sourcingcycle time (in

weeks)

6.3 13.5 10.7

Weighted avgorder cycletime (in days)

4.7 14.5 11.6


17/32


0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-24

37%

21%

18%

12%

4%

24+

8%

0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-24

2%

17%

20% 19%17%

24+

25%

0-2 2-4 4-8 8-16 16-24

5%

25% 27%

15%

9%

24+

19%

0-2 3-5 6-14 15-30 30+

41%38%

15%

4%2%

0-2 3-5 6-14 15-30 30+

5%

24%

30%

22%19%

0-2 3-5 6-14 15-30 30+

10%

36%

23%

18%

13%

SOURCING CYCLE TIMES (IN WEEKS)

ORDER CYCLE TIMES (IN DAYS)




18/32


19/32

PROCUREMENTTECHNOLOGY TRENDS


20/32


Looking at investment interest by major procurement technology category,e-Sourcingshows the largest increase from 2012 with the percentage alreadyusing the technology or planning to invest gaining 11 points. Somewhat smaller, yet

still notable increases are seen for both Contract Management and Spend Analysis

(+7pts each), with investment interest in the remaining three categories tested

procure-to-pay (P2P), supplier performance and information management (SM)

and procurement process and performance management (PM) all being relatively

flat compared with 2012. With that said, both Spend Analysisand Contract

Managementappear to be approaching ubiquity with only one in 10 companies

expressing zero interest in investing. Meantime, Procurement Management,which encompasses cost savings documentation, validation and alignment with

corporate financial metrics as well as project and process management for strategic

sourcing and other initiatives, leads for overall investment interest in 2014 with

some 33% of procurement professionals expecting their organizations to invest

soon in these types of solutions. Supplier Management, which encompasses

supplier performance measurement, scorecarding and reporting as well as supplier

information management takes a close second place with 32% overall saying they

expect to see near-term investments in this area.

Testing for presence of various procurement technology solutions by organizational

maturity levels finds Spend Analysis to be, very often, the first stop on the

procurement technology road map. Mid-maturity investments typically include P2P

and Contract Management, while investments in e-Sourcing, Supplier Management

and Procurement Management typically fall later in the lifecycles of evolving

strategic enterprise procurement functions.

As in prior Pulse of Procurement studies, presence of various procurement

technology solutions was tested against performance tiers for cost savings, spend

under management (SUM) and contract compliance. The most notable observations

e-Sourcing shows biggest two-year gain in procurementtechnology investment interest


21/32


SolutionAlready

have

Willinvestsoon

Noplans toinvest

Whereinvestment

typically falls in

maturity cycle...

SpendAnalysis

69% 22% 9% Early

ContractManagement

64% 25% 11% Mid

e-Sourcing 51% 25% 24% Late

P2P 53% 26% 21% Mid

SupplierManagement

46% 32% 22% Late

ProcurementManagement

45% 33% 22% Late

in this years study:

Companies falling into the top two

performance tiers for cost savings are

2.5X more likely to be using e-Sourcing

than those falling into the lowest

savings tiers. They are 1.5X more likely

than low savers to be using Contract

Management and 2.3X more likely to

be using P2P solutions. High compliance companies are 2X

more likely than low compliance

companies to be using P2P.

High SUM companies are 1.6X more

likely than low SUM to be using P2P.

Of note is that these observations are

based solely on coincidence of solutions

versus performance tiers and do not

represent statistical evidence of causality.

What is more, as procurement technology

solutions have continued to achieve greater

sophistication, market acceptance and

saturation, what used to be very large

tech gaps between high, mid- and low-

level performers appear to be closing with

many companies now investing in advanced

procurement solutions much earlier in their

transformation lifecycles than in the past.


22/32

32%

18% 17%

1%

32%

Mostlyhomegrown

ERPmodules

Procurementsoln mix

Procurementsuite

N/A

With a vision of the future that includes integrated,predictive, synthesized and globally-scoped businessintelligence, it is hardly surprising that procurement pros are

apparently dissatisfied with their current overall technology

profiles. Roughly one third describe their current configurations

as mostly homegrown, which includes solutions created in

electronic spreadsheets and desktop database applications as

well as custom solutions developed by in-house IT personnel.Another one third say they rely mainly on ERP modules while

a slightly larger group has invested in solutions developed

professionally and built from the ground up for procurement

in particular (versus being adapted from primarily finance,

accounting, manufacturing or other business perspectives).

This latter group is split between companies mixing discrete

procurement solutions from multiple providers and those

investing in integrated suites designed to move information

seamlessly and multilaterally among various steps in source-to-settle processes and to provide sophisticated dashboard types of

reporting and on-demand information retrieval at any point in a

strategic sourcing or procurement process.

While current configurations often deviate substantially from

what procurement pros see as their ideal technology setups, it

does appear that many have technology road maps in place that

will be at least moving them in the direction they want to go.


Huge gap identified between the technology procurementtypically has and what it really wants

What procurement has...


23/32

5%

10%

60%

7%

18%

Mostlyhomegrown

ERPmodules

Procurementsoln mix

Procurementsuite

N/A

7%

30%33%

7%

23%

Mostlyhomegrown

ERPmodules

Procurementsoln mix

Procurementsuite

N/A


vs. what it expects to get vs.what it wants


24/32

Its one thing to invest in and deploy procurement technology, quite another to convert large, complex corporate organizations to bothroutine and advanced use of solutions available. A special focus area for Zycus Pulse of Procurement 2014was to understand: How extensively procurement technology is being

adopted & used by various corporate constituencies.

How much of an impact technology adoption &

use might be having on procurements ability

to deliver on key performance indicators.

What factors might be influencing technology

adoption & use either positively or negatively.

Weighted average baselines for technology

adoption & use are shown in the chart on this

page. As might be expected, adoption & use

declines the further away from enterprise

procurement one looks, first to distributed/

non-enterprise procurement personnel and

then to spend or other corporate stakeholders

who get involved to varying degrees in procure-

to-pay, source-to-settle, supplier onboarding

and performance evaluation, documentation of

procurement cost savings and other procurement-

related business processes.

As the table on the next page reveals, there

appear to be clear relationships between average

procurement technology adoption & use rates


High performers in procurement show stronger technologyadoption & use across the board

60%

48%

38%

Enterpriseprocurement

Distributedprocurement

Stakeholders


25/32


KPI ConstituencyLowTier 1

MidTiers 2 & 3

HighTiers 4 & 5

Cost savings


54% 60% 65%


55% 47% 53%

Stakeholders 24% 39% 46%

SUM


52% 54% 68%


36% 43% 54%


Compliance


45% 61% 66%


31% 49% 53%


and performance tiers achieved, especially

where distributed procurement personnel and

stakeholders are concerned. So, for example,

High performers on the cost-savings

metric report stakeholder adoption & use

rates that are nearly two times higher, on

average, than their counterparts in low

savings companies.

High performers on the spend under

management (SUM) metric are 16 points

higher on enterprise procurement adoption

& use, 18 points higher on distributed

procurement and 26 points higher for the

stakeholder constituency.

For contract compliance, the gaps are

similar, ranging from 21-22 percentage

points cross all three of the user

constituencies tested in the study.

While, again, the study does not attempt

to prove causality (i.e., that achieving high

technology adoption & use drives performance

directly), the consistency of the relationships

shown is difficult to ignore.


26/32

Two other measures looked at in this years study include procurement technology utilization the estimated percentage of totalsolution functionality routinely employed by targeted end users and also procurement professionals personal assessments of thecurrent utility of available procurement technology in helping them perform their jobs. First, the good news: Procurements weighted

average tech utilization rate has increased 12 points from 37% in 2011 (the last

time the question was posed) to 49% in 2014. The bad news: At less than 50%

utilization overall, either advanced procurement technology is not sufficiently

easy to learn and use or companies are paying for bells and whistles they

neither value nor have the capability to exploit.

Of note is that this result dovetails quite closely with what Zycus has

been experiencing in the market with many organizations looking to

convert away from overly complex procurement technology

implementations that have been poorly adopted.

Technology utilization gains 12 points in three years


27/32

Primarytechnology

configuration

Weighted avg techutility ratings

(0-7 scale)

Avg. techutilization rates

by primaryconfiguration

Baseline (total studypopulation)

4.1 49%

Procurementsuite

5.3 64%

ERP 4.0 51%

Procurement

solution mix 4.0 52%

Mostlyhomegrown

3.6 41%

Procurement professionals tech-utility ratingsunderscore the story being told on pages 22-23 of this report, which shows a strong preference

for procurement technology that is organically and

professionally engineered for procurement and also

designed to move information seamlessly across andamong multiple stages in complex source-to-settle,

supplier relationship and procurement management

processes. As the table shows:

Companies already using integrated procurement

technology suites achieve tech utilization rates

that are well above the baseline average.

Procurement professionals working in

companies that operate with suite setups ratethe usefulness of their technology much higher

than procurement pros working with primarily

homegrown, solution mix or ERP configurations.

Our current procurement technology is...



28/32

[Our] procurement professionals spend most of their timebuilding spreadsheets to get useful data out of our tools.


29/32

TECHNOLOGY IMPACT& WISH LIST


30/32


Top tactics for driving technology adoption & use

If procurement technology adoption & use supports procurement performance improvement, what are some of the best ways to promoteit? The study asked participants to cite their most successful tactics for promoting procurement technology adoption & use. Isolating justcompanies reporting high adoption & use rates for various constituencies yields the following:

Achieving highestadoption and use

rates among...Number 1 tactic Number 2 tactic Number 3 tactic Number 4 tactic


personnel

Build and presentstrong business

case/60%

Choose easy/intuitivesolutions/55%

Choose solutionswith strong workflow

capabilities/48%

Monitor and reportusage/45%


personnel

Build and presentstrong business

case/59%



Conduct extensivetraining/41%

Spendstakeholders

Build and presentstrong business case

/52%


Monitor/reportusage/41%

Strong workflow/41%Use policies/41%

Conduct extensivetraining/37%

Across-the-boardBuild and presentstrong business

case/57%

Choose solutionswith strong workflow

capabilities/48%




31/32


Sweet spot for procurement technology selection: Easy-to-usestandard features coincide with higher adoption at all levels

Weighted averagetechnology adoption& use rates among...

Low ease of use instandard features

Baseline (totalstudy population)

Mid ease of use instandard features

High ease instandard features


personnel45% 60% 62% 69%


personnel37% 48% 49% 53%

Spendstakeholders

27% 38% 39% 45%

Atop tactic for companies achieving high rates of procurement technology adoption & use is to select solutions that are intuitive andeasy to learn. However, when asked to rate their current solution setups for ease of adoption & use, overall scoring is on the low side,especially with respect to advanced feature sets. On a scale of 1 to 7, with one being difficult and seven being very easy, procurement

professionals rate standard features at an average weighted score of 3.9 (just slightly better than half way up the scale). They rate

advanced features at a score of 3.3 less than halfway up the scale. For advanced features, some 60% of procurement professionals score

their current technology at two or lower on the 1-7 ease-of-use scale.

The table below compares average adoption & use rates according to where on the ease-of-use scale procurement professionals rate

their currently deployed solutions standard features. Companies reporting high ease of use in standard features see the biggest upward

usage bump among enterprise procurement personnel 24 points higher, on average, when compared to companies rating their standard

solution features as essentially difficult to use. Among distributed procurement personnel, the adoption & use differential is +16pts; for

spend stakeholders it is +18pts when standard solution features are rated as very easy to use.


32/32

Zycus is dedicated to positioning procurement at the heart of business performance. With our spirit of innovation and a passion to help

procurement create even greater business advantages, we have evolved our portfolio to a complete Source-to-Pay suite of procurementperformance solutions which includes Spend Analysis, e-Sourcing, Contract Management, Supplier Management, Financial Savings

Management, and Procure-to-Pay.

Behind every Zycus solution stands an organization that possesses deep, detailed procurement expertise and a sharp focus on being

responsive to customers. We are a large 600+ and growing company with a physical presence in virtually every major region of the

globe. We see each customer as a partner in innovation and no client is too small to deserve our attention. With more than 200 solution

deployments among Global 1000 clients, we search the world continually for procurement practices proven to drive competitive business

performance. We incorporate these practices into easy-to-use solutions that give procurement

teams the power to get moving quickly from any point of departure and to continue

innovating and pushing business and procurement performance to new heights.

UNITED STATES

103 Carnegie Center, Suite 201, Princeton NJ 08540

609 799 5664

5600 N.River Road, Suite 800, Rosemont IL 60018

847 993 3180

555 Northpoint Center East, 4th Floor, Alpharetta GA 30022

678 366 5000

UNITED KINGDOM

Office No 104, 400 Thames Valley Park Drive, Thames Valley Park

Reading, Berkshire, RG6 1PT

+44 (0) 1189 637 493

INDIA

Plot No. GJ - 07, Seepz++, Seepz SEZ, Andheri (East), Mumbai 400 096

+91 22 66407676

Pulse of Procurement 2014 ZYCUS

Documents

Transcript of Pulse of Procurement 2014 ZYCUS