Monthly Archives: July 2006

Another Bite Out of the Apple?

Recently, CNN ran an article indicating that the Next generation of iPods could be delayed, and the iPod nano and the video iPod in particular. The new iPod nano, originally expected this quarter, is likely going to be pushed back to December and the new video iPod may not appear until 2007.

The expected delay on the iPod nano is the result of Apple switching suppliers for an internal chip whereas the expected delay in the video iPod is due to the need to increase screen size and improve battery life. On the bright side, the capacity of the iPod nano is expected to double.

Could this result in yet another blow to Apple, which must be taking a bit of a beating since a recent newspaper article alleged that staff in some of its Chinese iPod factors work long hours for low pay and in “slave” conditions, as summarized in this article . After all, Apple sold one million iPod nano’s in the first 17 days of its release, leading an AMR analyst to determine it had a predatory supply chain, so any delay beyond the start of the holiday shopping season could be a major hit to the bottom line.

You’d think Apple would be more cautious, considering their recent switch to Intel last year caused them some supply chain problems. However, what surprises me is that despite the fact they seem to have their distribution down, using the global logistics powerhouse BAX Global, which was recently acquired by Deutsche Bahn AG, they appear to continually have difficulties getting products out on time.

I’d be curious to know what sort of development methodologies they use, and more importantly, when they involve procurement in the process. According to a recent Aberdeen report, When procurement is included in new product design (NPD) in the design stages, product development cost is typically decreased by 16 to 18%, overall product cost is typically decreased 15%, and revenue is typically increased by 19%. Furthermore, whereas the majority of companies are not able to consistently hit product development targets with respect to percentage of products meeting revenue targets, cost targets, launch date targets, quality targets, or product development cost targets, the majority of best-in-class companies that have incorporated procurement into the process at the design stages hit these targets over 80% of the time.

Moreover, as I indicate in my Purchasing Innovation series over at e-Sourcing Forum, I strongly believe that procurement needs to be involved in R&D and NPD from day one, as procurement should be the major source of innovation within an enterprise.

Problem Solving Series IV: Finding a Solution

This is the fourth post in a series of posts designed to introduce you to problem solving strategies that you can use to attack your sourcing and supply chain problems. Last Sunday we discussed six strategies that you could use to help you find the root cause of a problem, which is the first, and most important, step in constructing a model. Today we are going to discuss three methodologies for finding a solution, and some associated strategies that you can use to apply the methodologies.

The first methodology you can use is to start with a potential solution or solution to a related problem that you might be able to modify to your current situation. The following strategies can help you out here:

( 1 ) Apply and Adjust

Apply the related solution, look for issues, and attempt to adjust the related solution to make it work. If you are currently trying to lower spend on a commodity, and you already lowered spend on other commodities in the same category, try to apply the same techniques that you already used.

( 2 ) Work backwards

Work backwards from your goal until you have a reduced problem that the starting solution applies to. Then try to extend the starting solution forward. This also works if you don’t have a starting solution, as it can help you identify one. If you are trying to design a transportation network, start with the receiving points and work back to the original shipping points.

The second methodology you can use is to make use of what psychologists like to call “external aids”, or methodologies that go beyond simply applying the basic process in conjunction with your internal knowledge. Some examples, or strategies, are as follows:

( 1 ) Ask an Expert

If you know someone you can ask who knows more then you about the problem and potential solutions, ask. They might be able to provide you with a solution or at least point you in the right direction quickly. Generally speaking, the best learn from the best.

( 2 ) Research the archives

Although this does include looking in books and magazines, it also includes researching the vast amount of information available on the internet. If someone already solved the problem why do it again?

( 3 ) Try Applied Theory

Do not be afraid to test out an academic theory if you have a hard or unique problem, even if it is new. For example, general economic principles and theories are widely applicable and might help shed some insight. Sourcing and supply management texts might hold the answers, as might the leading blogs, such as Spend Matters, e-Sourcing Forum, and Procurement Central.

( 4 ) Try the Scientific Method

Especially if the problem is technical, engineering, or R&D oriented. Simply put, this means systematically collecting data to test a hypothesis, applying certain types of research design and analysis methods to the data, and being skeptical about the results. This is especially true if you are trying to determine the best source of supply of components for a new prototype, especially since 80% of the total costs can be locked in during the design phase.

( 5 ) Try Mathematics

Mathematics is a universal language, and the foundation of our physical sciences. Sometimes an appropriate mathematical representation makes a problem trivial. Considering that just about every decision support and optimization tool makes use of mathematics, it’s always a good starting point.

The third methodology you can use is to do it the old fashioned way and use logic and brain power to find the answer. Basic strategies you can use here are:

( 1 ) Reason by analogy

Often the actual solutions to similar problems as well as the methodologies used can help you with your current problem. Let’s say you are trying to redesign your purchase order process. If you recently redesigned an invoicing process, there might be strong similarities.

( 2 ) Use deductive reasoning

Deductive reasoning involves the progression from a general rule to an application in a specific instance. For example, collaboration often improves processes and lower costs. This general rule can be applied to each relationship you have.

( 3 ) Use inductive reasoning

Inductive reasoning involves drawing on specific instances to form a general rule. If switching negotiation strategies on other commodities on the category reduced cost, then maybe new negotiation strategies are the right solution here as well.

( 4 ) Question assumptions

We make assumptions all the time, many of which are based on untested theories. If we have problems finding a solution, we should question the validity of those assumptions as we could be looking in the wrong place.

That concludes our introduction to solution finding strategies. Next Sunday we will discuss some generic methodologies you can use to evaluate a potential solution and determine whether or not it is acceptable or if you should continue looking for a better solution.

On Demand IV: And the SaaS Story Continues

Shortly after I finished writing my three part post on On-Demand over at e-Sourcing Forum (The Good, The Not-So-Bad, And the Coming Pretty …), I stumbled across this great article by IQ Navigator‘s John F. Martin (of Building SaaS fame) called How True Software-as-a-service Delivers More Value over at Supply & Demand Chain Executive.

In this article, he echoes many of the same points that I have attempted to make in my series of posts, and does so brilliantly. He also clearly emphasizes some of the significant disadvantages of legacy enterprise software in relation to True Software-as-a-Service and gives you some rules for identifying a legacy provider with an ASP model trying to disguise themselves as a software-as-a-service provider.

He emphasizes the following five significant advantages of true SaaS solutions as compared to legacy applications that I believe just cannot be stressed enough:

  • no significant technology investments
    with legacy enterprise application solutions, you have to shell out for significant technology infrastructures to support them; with on-demand, all you need is the PC already on your users’ desks
  • no assembly required
    legacy applications require customers to become technical experts in the software: installation, infrastructure configuration, integration, customization, issue diagnosis, and upgrades; this involves significant training, ramp up time, and paying for a large IT staff indefinitely
  • no lock downs
    once customized legacy software finally goes live, it becomes a “strait jacket” that prevents future innovation and improvements for 3-5 more years (as upgrades are deferred as long as possible due to significant costs to re-implement new versions)
  • speedy issue resolution
    with a legacy enterprise application, the software vendor must often replicate a customer’s unique environment (exact production versions of application, database, operating system, hardware drivers, etc.), which can take weeks, only to determine that the issue can not be diagnosed or fixed because (1) it’s due to a customization (2) it’s the responsibility of another software component provider or (3) the version of the software you are running is too old
  • true process expertise
    true SaaS software vendors are experts in the business processes they automate; they can provide ongoing assistance in using new software capabilities, process innovations, and best-practices

And when you consider that Gartner estimates that more then 70% of the total five year cost of ownership for enterprise software comes after implementation, when you consider on-demand is usually significantly cheaper then enterprise software to begin with, this is a powerful proposition.

He also indicates that you can often tell a legacy application on ASP in disguise by noting one or more of the following indicators:

  • a reluctance to pilot
    pilots represent a significant investment to a legacy application provider who will have to configure a new instance just for you; in contrast, a true SaaS solution provider can enter your name and flick a software switch and the pilot is immediately set to go
  • elephant hunting
    (where the salesperson tries to enlarge the deal as much as possible to maximize revenue before you discover the true benefit/cost ratio of owning the software); in contrast, a true SaaS provider will allow you to buy the bare minimum knowing that you’ll want to buy more when you discover how great the service really is
  • reluctance or refusal to discuss revenue
    or the question “what would happen to your profitability if you had no new customers over the coming 12 months?” this would cause a traditional provider serious grief and lead to significant downsizing; in contrast, an established SaaS provider would be able to maintain status quo
  • infrequent or new functionality in any given year
    in contrast, most true on-demand SaaS providers provide regular updates 3 or 4 times a year
  • hosted versions lag new releases
    in contrast, a true SaaS solution is always up to date
  • insistence on single tenant or multiple instances
    in contrast, a true SaaS provider will want to take advantage of the multi-tenant model to save you both $$$
  • delayed or long implementations
    a provider running a legacy application on ASP may require weeks or months before they can get you up and running; a true SaaS solution can literally turn you on the same day you cut a deal
  • simple customizations require single tenant instances
    in contrast, true SaaS implementations are usually built to contain a moderate amount of configurability from the ground up
  • end of contract unknowns
    with legacy in disguise, you never know if you’ll be able to renew, how much it will cost, if you can get your data out, etc.; in contrast, true on-demand SaaS providers will specify everything for you up front, usually in the contract

Remember, as John F. Martin says, “SaaS allows customers to focus on their core competencies and their business processes rather than becoming experts on software internals, technology infrastructure maintenance, or deployment methodologies.

Yet another take on SaaS can be found in Robert Bois’ recent AMR article The Rush to SaaS: Making Sense of the New Wild Wild West, where he presents The SaaS buyer’s guide. In it he presents three questions that the buyer should answer before selecting a solution.

  • What’s in an architecture?
    Mr. Bois points out that from a buyer’s perspective, that single tenancy vs. multi-tenancy should not be as big a concern as the pricing model, SLA, and customer support. Although I will admit that the SLA and customer support issues should be tops, I do not entirely agree with the first point. If price is important, then a multi-tenancy model should save both parties money. Furthermore, as Sudy Bharadwaj of Aberdeen eludes in his take of On-Demand Supply Management at e-Sourcing Forum, accepting a single tenancy model may cause you to miss out on the community benefits of a multi-tenancy model.
  • What’s the real TCO?
    This is probably the most important question a buyer should ask. If the TCO of an on-demand solution is high, I’d be willing to wager that there is a good chance that what you are actually being offered is a legacy ASP application in disguise, at which point you should refer to Mr. Martin’s indicators to find out for sure. I like Mr. Bois’ cost table, but should point out it is only accurate for the lifetime of your initial hardware and software purchases. The table seems to indicate that there are no annual subscription/license, hardware, or middleware/db license costs after the first year. This is not necessarily the case. If you want upgrades, you will have to pay a maintenance fee. Middleware providers only support their releases for a fixed time frame, and if you do not upgrade on a reasonable cycle, you will find yourself running an unsupported product, which will cost you a fortune if something fails and you need it fixed. Finally, even the best hardware will not last you more then three years without an upgrade.
  • To customize or not to customize? Mr. Bois makes a really good point here: “many companies believe their business processes are more unique than they really are, and they should weigh the advantages to more custom coded logic against the lower maintenance and upgrade costs of using business process tools and configuration instead of customization“.

Finally, I’d like to again point out Sudy Bharadwaj’s Six Step Framework for On Demand Supply Management. (login required) Part of Aberdeen Group’s Enterprise Strategies: Insight and Advice for Enterprise Executives, it overviews the Aberdeen PROFIT Framework for Supply Management as a Service (SMaaS). The PROFIT Framework was designed “to aid supply management evaluators in understanding how to deploy an On Demand solution to drive value“. It provides a series of Process, Regulatory, Operational, Financial, Intelligence, and Technology questions whose answers are designed to help you make the right decision.

The On-Demand Supply Management Benchmark Report

Aberdeen Group recently released “The On-Demand Supply Management Benchmark Report: Enterprises Turn to the Web and Find Quicker and Better ROI to Help Achieve Supply Management Goals“. You can obtain a free copy of this report by clicking here, courtesy of Iasta, a report sponsor.   Kudos for Iasta for providing the link on e-Sourcing Forum quickly, this is a report you don’t want to miss!

There are a number of significant findings in this report. Since you can download it for free, I will not attempt to cover the findings in depth here, but simply display the following teasers that should get your mouth watering for more!

  • 57% of survey respondents indicated that on-demand performs better than traditional installed behind-the-firewall legacy applications with a further 33% indicating that on-demand performes about the same; that’s 90% of respondents agreeing that on-demand performs as well or better than traditional legacy applications
  • 57% of survey respondents indicated that on-demand systems are easier to upgrade than traditional installed behind-the-firewall legacy applications with a further 34% indicating upgrades required about the same amount of effort; that’s 90% of respondents agreeing that on-demand systems are at least as easy to upgrade as traditional legacy applications
  • 52% of survey respondents indicated that on-demand systems require less implementation time and effort than traditional installed behind-the-firewall legacy applications with a further 39% indicating installs took about the same amount of time and effort; that’s 91% of respondents agreeing that on-demand is at least as fast to implement as legacy systems, if not faster
  • enterprises deploying on-demand solutions improve spend under management by 28% more than enterprises that deploy installed on-site solutions over the course of a year28% … considering that the savings potential for each dollar of spend under management is between 5% and 20%, even if the actual savings realized is only 30.3% of planned savings (industry average – best in class do much better), then you are looking at a savings of at least 1.2M for every 1B … 1.2M+ … and considering that decent on-demand suites can be obtained for 250K/year (not counting professional services), you could easily save 1M just by using on-demand! ( If you are best-in class and capture 70% of planned savings and efficient and get 15% on each dollar of spend under management, you save roughly 3M more on every 1B going with an on-demand solution! )

And that statistic sums up nicely everything I’ve always believed about the inherent value of on-demand. For more of my views, check out my 3-part series over on e-Sourcing Forum if you haven’t already (The Good, The Not-So-Bad, And the Coming Pretty …) and Sudy Bharadwaj‘s thoughtful commentary, also on e-Sourcing Forum.

Have a great day and enjoy the study!

You might also enjoy A Six Step Framework for On Demand Supply Management, released on the same day as well (login required). Part of Aberdeen Group’s Enterprise Strategies: Insight and Advice for Enterprise Executives, it overviews the Aberdeen PROFIT Framework for Supply Management as a Service (SMaaS). The PROFIT Framework was designed “to aid supply management evaluators in understanding how to deploy an On Demand solution to drive value”. It provides a series of Process, Regulatory, Operational, Financial, Intelligence, and Technology questions whose answers are designed to help you make the right decision.

Is Low Cost Country Sourcing to China Really Innovative?

Since I haven’t been to China, and haven’t been involved in Chinese outsourcing (after all, software technology outsourcing was dominated by India firms during my software career), I’ve been hesitant to post on this topic. However, after reading Low Cost Country Sourcing in a Flattened World by Brad Blonkvist and John Kamauff in Chief Supply Chain Officer magazine, I just couldn’t hold back anymore. It finally pointed out the solid facts behind the anecdotal basis of my fears – China just does not have the physical infrastructure to maintain its current growth rate (despite the fact they are building 4.2B railways).

In order to scale up production, you need a certain amount of infrastructure. First of all, you need qualified engineers to staff your factories, plants, or service centers. On a per capita basis, China has only 8.6 students for every 1000 residents, as compared to 56.2 for the US. Furthermore, the studies that claim China graduates considerably more engineers and scientists each year are false. Consider the recent report Framing the Engineering Outsourcing Debate: Placing the United States on a Level Playing Field with China and India , by researchers Gary Gereffi, director of the Center on Globalization, Governance, and Competitiveness at Duke University, and Vivek Wadhwa, executive in residence at Duke’s Pratt School of Engineering, as summarized by the National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) on the NSTA WebNews Digest. Even though media reports in 2004 indicated that China produced 600,000 engineers compared to the 70,000 produced by the United States, the study found that more than 290,000 of the Chinese degrees were subbaccalaureate. After all, since the Chinese figures consist of data from different provinces that have no standard definition of engineering and include “the equivalent of motor mechanics and industrial technicians”, its clear that the actual numbers of graduates with US and EU equivalent degrees is much less then advertised. The Washington Post also ran a good article on this topic.

Furthermore, studies by organizations such as the McKinsey Global Institute have indicated that multinationals find that less then 25 percent of the graduates are employable. When you add the considerable language barrier into the picture, this indicates that the number of qualified engineers in China is considerably less then what many firms believe, and despite China’s large population, probably less then the number of qualified engineers in the US. Furthermore, it costs a lot of money to turn those who are qualified into productive workers. In Outsourcing to China, a special report from the Economist, the article points out that foreign companies in China are spending a small fortune “subsidizing China’s education system”. As an example, it points out that Fujitsu‘s Mr Noshiro has put some 40 Chinese workers through intensive training in Japan, at a cost of $30,000 a year each. “They need two years of full-time training just to become a middle-level engineer and four years to get to be a project manager.” Furthermore, even after three years of training “only 10-20% of programmers ever get to a really good level and can become an architect. China has so many colleges and so many graduates, but the degrees are not as good as they sound.”

Secondly, you need raw materials to build and run your plants. China is already importing more then its fair share of raw materials on a global basis. In addition to currently being the world’s largest importer of steel, it is importing 47% of cement, 21% of aluminum, 37% of cotton, and 30% of processed coal on a global basis. How much higher can these numbers go and be sustainable?

Thirdly, you need an infrastructure to get your raw materials in and your finished products out. Dozens of articles have been pointing out the infrastructure shortcomings in terms of paved roads and highways in India for a while now, but outside of a few big cities and central areas, China’s infrastructure is actually much worse. This shouldn’t be surprising as China only has 7 cars per capita compared to the 481 of the US. In addition, China has less then 150 airports compared to the 19,000 in the US.

Fourthly, you need energy to operate your plants – and this is where the numbers get really, really scary. Up to 30% of factories in China are periodically idle for weeks at a time due to power outages. According to the article, Northeast China is expected to exhaust power generation capacity by 2010! But if the rate of outsourcing to China continues to increase, I would predict that this could happen by 2008 – which is only 2 years away! After all, the actual increase in energy usage last year was 15%, not the 5% that was predicted. As it stands, China’s energy needs are expected to double by 2020 at the latest!

Fifthly, you have to protect yourself … but IP protection in China is almost nonexistent. I’ve read and heard too many stories of company X outsourcing product W to company Y who turns around and sells cheap knock-off Z in China which is undifferentiable from your product to the average buyer.

In other words, China, an emerging economy, is about to face a number of very significant problems simultaneously in a very short time frame – problems that the US, an established world superpower, has been battling for years with only limited success (think about the California or NorthEast energy grids, the fact that most major cities now have five and ten year plans just to alleviate current levels of traffic congestion, and the significant amounts of imports the US already requires). And I just can’t envision China coming up with a miracle to prevent the abrupt halt that is in its near future if outsourcing to China continues to increase at an exponential rate.

Now I know China is working on their infrastructure, but they are still concerned with connecting remote provinces by road and rail in efforts to integrate their people into one culture. Furthermore, as illuminated in Train to the Roof of the World, in their efforts to achieve these goals, they are taking considerable risks. For example, in their efforts to connect Tibet, and its capital Lhasa, to the rest of China, they are building a railroad over permafrost that could melt in the near future, especially considering global warming, which is not a myth and happening now. After all, concentrations of greenhouse gases such as methane and carbon dioxide today are the highest seen (40% higher than the highest concentrations measured) in the last 440,000 years, as determined by ice core research, which has removed cores 1.8 miles deep in the Antarctic.  

But then again, as I’ve stated above, I’m not an expert, nor have I been to China. So I’m going to invite thought leader Jason Busch of Spend Matters who has been there and is a strong believer that the best is yet to come in outsourcing to China to use his open mic as soon as he crawls back online and tell me why I’m wrong and how China is going to solve these problems that have plagued the US and its northern neighbor for years – and do so to a sufficient degree in the next three years before the impending energy crisis begins what could be a quick, and massive, collapse.