Today’s post continues that discussion with a look at the complexity of a PPE buying decision, the consequences of failure to give it the time and attention it needs, and the benefits for both users and sellers of PPE in altering and improving the decision making process.
A recent study shows that there are basically 3 types of buying decisions made for MRO products which PPE falls under:
A straight rebuy is when a purchase order is issued for the exact same thing that was ordered before. A modified rebuy is when there is at least a perfunctory look at what else is available but then the same product is purchased for the same reasons it was originally. A clean slate is when an exhaustive search of everything that is available is undertaken, new choice criteria are developed, and the best product for the application is selected and purchased.
The OSHA Guidelines require a “Clean Slate” process for every PPE buying decision, but as the pie chart shows, that occurs just 22% of the time. The other 78% of the time, PPE buying decisions makers could be putting their work forces at risk and could be costing their employers money in terms of higher injury costs by buying inadequate or inappropriate PPE.
Why do they use a straight or modified rebuy? It is easy, it is quick, they do not have enough information to justify changing, and they think they limit their personal risk by using what they always used. They are also very busy people, with numerous priorities and they do not see the connection between the PPE they buy, injury costs and the company’s bottom line.
Many PPE buying decision makers engage in a practice we call the “High Cost of Being Average”. That involves looking at their injury frequency and severity rates and if they are in line with the national aggregate rates published by several organizations, and they have not gone up since the last time PPE was purchased, they use that as justification for a rebuy of what they are using. That can be a very costly decision.
Statistics show that Lost Time Injuries occur at the rate of about 4(rounded) per 100 full time employees. The full cost (direct and indirect) of a lost time injury is approaching $50,000. So the “average” company experiences $200,000 of injury expense for each 100 employees they have. That cost comes right off of the bottom line. But as long as the companies injury experience is no worse than the “average”, buying decision makers think they are doing OK and should keep on doing what they have been doing.
This is where sellers of PPE can and should make a difference. It is their responsibility to inform and educate prospects and customers that all PPE is not alike; there are significant differences in design, quality and performance among brands; and the choice criteria for selecting a brand should involve much more than just the purchase price. The biggest problem a PPE sales person has is not their competition; it is customer inertia, customer satisfaction with the status quo. The 78% of customers who opt for a “rebuy” is proof of that.
To overcome the inertia, a sales person must show that they offer something different, and the differences are of value in terms of IMPROVING injury frequency, severity, and cost, rather than just settling for being average. It is the sales person who must introduce the “clean slate” process and walk a customer through it.
In a rebuy situation, purchasing often acts as a gatekeeper to keep sales people from the buying decision maker and influencers throughout the organization. But starting with a clean slate, it is important for the sales person to get to, educate and inform everyone within the organization who is affected by a PPE buying decision. It begins with the responsible safety official who they must show that their product performs better than what is being used and is more appropriate for the hazards of the job. It moves to production officials who must be made aware that the products being evaluated will not hinder production or be so uncomfortable they lead to time away from the job. It includes Human Resources who must be convinced that the training required by OSHA is available. And it concludes with the wearer who must be made to feel comfortable, protected and productive while wearing the equipment.
Moving through that process will develop new and better choice criteria which will result in a much better PPE buying decision that complies with the OSHA Guidelines. In addition, it eliminates the buying decision as a “human error or system failure” that might have contributed to the cost of an injury.
