Regarding "Purchasing gets under the hood" (PURCHASING, July 14, 2005), Did they fix the problems which occurred (with the Mustang) at 50-70K miles? Every time I reached 50K I would have to bring in my 1995 Ford Mustang and have the head gasket overhauled, which cost $600-$700. With the cost you pay for a car, this should not happen. I had the head gasket worked on three times.Thank God, I was hit by someone and the car was totaled.

Nancy Stower, Fargo, ND

The Mustang story ("Purchasing gets under the hood, July 14, 2005) shows excellent insight where the collaboration of engineering and procurement complement the first-to-market message validated by an excellent product! Great job guys!

Chris Balteff, Carlsbad, Calif.

(Regarding "Recipe for success," July 14, 2005): New Englanders are loyal to the Red Sox. Multi-national corporations could learn a lesson from them. Instead of shutting down factories and laying off hard-working red-blooded Americans or dumping their loyal hardworking vendor base, try working with their employees and vendors to cut costs and improve efficiency. No one likes a traitor or someone who is so quick to jump ship to save a penny or to be on the winning side, whether it be in sports or business. Good employees and good vendors are hard to come by. Remember "what goes around, comes around."

David King, Warren, Maine

It is commendable that Boston Scientific has placed new emphasis on their Indirect Spend ("Team breathes new life into indirect procurement," July 14, 2005). The benefit of doing so is apparent. However, to suggest that Procurement should not play a key role in direct spend so that the R&D folks can have creative freedom seems to turn aside from a tremendous opportunity. Research shows time and again that the greatest impact on total spend occurs during the development stage. That's why early supplier (also read that as "procurement") involvement is critical. Savings achieved after costs have been built in at the design phase pale in comparison to those that can be achieved (avoided) early on.

James A. Vaughn, Mansfield, Mass.

(Regarding the "Data-driven spend success," part of the feature package on "Leaders in spend analysis," March 17, 2005): Sounds like (Agere Systems has) a great approach (to controlling spending). It would be interesting to understand how they develop the CCI (the commodity cost index used to analyze the company's buying price vs. the market price)—data sources, weightings, etc.

Lisa Ellram, Tempe, Ariz.

Regarding "Team breathes new life into indirect spend"), the P-card spend analysis showed an average transaction amount of $240-$260 the first two years, but then it jumped to over $3,000 per transaction. What caused the change?

Richard Kanarian, Boston, Mass.

The short answer is—we goofed. The transaction number in the graphic you're referring to (July 14, 2005, page 43) mistakenly omitted the first digit—a 7— which would have made the number of transactions 75,961, not the 5,961 you've based your calculations on. Good catch Richard. We very much appreciate the attention to detail and we thank you for helping us improve our coverage. The editors