Monthly Archives: February 2007

The Sorcerers of Sorcity

Another stop on my whirlwind tour of North Dallas was
Sorcity. My goal was to find out if they were an on-line auction platform, an e-marketplace, a combination of both, or something entirely different … since their site left me asking as many questions as it answered.

Founded in early 1999, it is possibly the oldest surviving stand-alone on-line reverse auction platform in the sourcing space (as most of the early major players have been acquired). [As a side note, Procuri (acquired by Ariba, acquired by SAP) is probably number two as it was founded in 1999 as well, and Iasta (acquired by Selectica, merged with b-Pack, rebranded Determine, acquired by Corcentric) is probably number three, as it was founded in early 2000]. In addition, it also serves as a marketplace with over 620,000 registered suppliers where you can potentially find hundreds of suppliers that could meet your needs. However, the real differentiator between the other online and on-demand SaaS reverse auction providers and other e-marketplaces is its managed services offering.

When you get right down to it, even with the best tools available, with finite resources, you can only conduct so many sourcing events on your own. The only way to conduct more events is to augment your team, either by hiring consultants or outsourcing part of the process – that’s where managed services comes in. With Sorcity’s platform, you can use Sorcity to assist with as much of the executable sourcing cycle (Preparation / RFX / Auction / Negotiation / Award) as you like … anywhere from just automating all of the time-consuming administration, negotiation, and analysis to having Sorcity conduct the entire event for you end-to-end.

With their tool alone, they claim you can save 1-12 days on the auction component alone, an additional 3-66% on price paid, and get anything you need with their very large supplier network. So they are definitely competitive with the service offerings of the on-demand providers like Iasta and Procuri. But as I just said, the real power is their managed services where you can outsource entire categories and events. Under this model, provided your bid is for 100K or more, you can successfully complete an event with just 1-2 hours over 1-2 weeks! Furthermore, it does not cost you anything – the fees are paid by the vendor who is awarded the business! (I believe they also have a consulting model, where they will help you for fixed fee, but, unlike most vendors, you only have to pay if they save you money. How can they do it? Years of experience has taught them where considerable savings are, and where they aren’t. So if they don’t think you can save enough money on a category / event to make it worth your while, they’ll help you find one where you can save enough to make it worth your while.)

So although I would hesitate to recommend their solution for in-house purchases (and I still believe all high-value and strategic purchases should be managed by a core team in one center of excellence under a center-led purchasing model) as I believe those should be executed under a platform that covers the entire sourcing cycle (and not just the executable sourcing cycle), I would certainly not hesitate to recommend that you consider them for those categories that are not critical to your business (and when you get down to it, the vast majority of your purchases are not, despite what you might think – if ten suppliers can make a part, it’s not strategic – only those components that can only be provided by a handful (< 5) of vendors or those components that can be, and often are, in short supply are critical, and therefore need to be classified as strategic). After all, the best way to do strategic sourcing is to strategically outsource everything you do not have a core competency for and everything you just do not have time to strategic source in house.

So check out Sorcity and check back to see if I am successfully able to convince their white-paper writer to guest author a post on why a managed services platform may also be appropriate for certain high-spend or strategic purchases.

I Finally Figured Out Why …

I’m not stir-crazy about AMR’s DDSN – Demand Driven Supply Network – focus, but I could never figure out why. I fundamentally agree with the principles, I like a lot of the great research they have produced, and yes I believe you should be focused on understanding actual demand, but DDSN just doesn’t seem to have that special ring to it – the ring that rolls of your tongue. Then yesterday I stumbled across InventoryOps.com Business Humor Lame Lists.

Included with paradigm, sea change, watershed moment, and leveraging, among others, is, you guessed it:

Demand Chain Does calling a supply chain a demand chain really change anything? I’m pretty confident that most people working in supply chain management realize the purpose of the supply chain is to meet demand.

All I can say is … Duh! So in the grand scheme of the Purchasing – Procurement – Sourcing – Supply – Spend – Management Smorgasboard, I’m going to keep calling it supply chain. And now I know why.

The New and Improved I2

During my whirlwind tour of North Dallas, I was lucky enough to be able to meet with both Sarinder Chhabra (Senior Vice President) and Manish Govil (Program Manager) of i2 Technologies to talk about what i2 has been up to lately and where they are going.

I’m sure many of you still consider i2 to be the gold-ring exclusive services provider to the top ten or top twenty aerospace, automotive, high tech, and chemical providers, with deep service offerings beyond your needs and capabilities, and price tags to match, but that’s the i2 of old. Having conquered best in class, they realized that they only had two options for growth: conquer new verticals or address a larger market-space. New verticals would be a great start, and their generic process solutions could be customized to the needs of just about any vertical, but the real market lies in the mid-market, where most companies reside. Therefore, they decided to entirely re-architect their software and solution offerings to address the needs of small and large alike! And it sounds like they got it right.

The following are seven key points that I took away from my discussions.

  • They’ve re-architected all of their modules and major sub-modules as Service-Oriented Architecture enabled components and developed a new AGILE business platform that allows them to integrate just the components you need.
  • They’ve enhanced their technology architecture to include best of breed third-party products, such as Endeca’s (acquired by Oracle) search technology and Denso’s OEM catalogue.
  • They have embraced Software as a Service principles and will offer hosted solutions or managed services as well as event-based offerings.
  • They have been working hard on a next generation supply management solution that integrates the software and services you need to be successful.
  • They have been actively creating and embracing partnerships, and will happily work with complimentary providers to provide you a full suite of connected and integrated products to give you an end-to-end solution for whatever part of the supply chain you are attacking.
  • They have been working hard to translate their broad in depth knowledge base of industry best practices into generic processes that can be built into your configured software solution.
  • They have been working hard to transform from a software provider to a solution provider – to offer you the services, be it generic software, custom software, consulting services, or managed services, in-house or through partnerships – you need to succeed.

I look forward to diving into some of their new offerings in the near future.

Spend Analysis IV: Defining “Analysis”

Today I’d like to welcome back Eric Strovink of BIQ (acquired by Opera Solutions, rebranded ElectrifAI) who, as I indicated in part I of this series, is authoring the first part of this series on next generation spend analysis and why it is more than just basic spend visibility. Much, much more!

“No canned report survives first contact with the analyst.”

Analysis = Agility

Reporting on a large transaction dataset is
technically challenging. For example, pointing ordinary reporting
tools at a large dataset doesn’t work well, because what might
seem like a perfectly ordinary and reasonable database query can require minutes to
complete, sometimes even hours. That’s why OLAP (“On Line
Analytical Processing”) technology is required in order to
return results quickly on large datasets, and that’s why every data
warehouse uses some variant of it.

OLAP is not a panacea. OLAP database queries only
work within a rigid framework — that is, queries are
fast only within the data dimensions and hierarchies that have
been pre-defined. To ask a question outside of that rigid
framework, and to get an answer to that question in a reasonable
amount of time, the underlying dataset structure must be changed —
either dimensional hierarchies must be altered, data re-mapped, or
entirely new data dimensions created.

Data analysis is an inherently ad hoc process —
to paraphrase Sun Tzu, “no canned report survives
first contact with the analyst.” But, in order to be able to perform the
OLAP queries that support ad hoc reporting, it is necessary to change the dataset structure
to support those queries. And, it had better be possible
to do that quickly and easily; otherwise OLAP power cannot
be brought to bear on the ad hoc report, which means that
the report can’t be generated without great pain.

Analysis therefore equates, in a very real sense, to “agility”;
in other words, how quickly and easily one can:

  • generate new dimensions;
  • change existing dimensional hierarchies;
  • map and family new and existing dimensions.

Agility also applies at a higher level. I argued in

Spend Analysis I: The Value Curve that the notion of
one dataset for spending data is limiting, because many
different analysis views — especially commodity-specific
views — can be key to driving additional value. If the spend analysis process involves the creation
of multiple datasets over time, and it’s hard or expensive to build
or modify datasets, then that process can’t move forward.

Agility also requires that the above operations be performed by
business users with limited IT skills, on their own, without
assistance from vendor or internal experts. If the system is
not agile, then the default decision is not to analyze,
as pointed out in

Spend Analysis II: The Psychology of Analysis. That is
the worst possible outcome for the enterprise, because it perpetuates
information starvation in a land of data plenty.

Analysis = Speed

Here’s a heretical statement, coming from a spend analysis vendor:
anything that a spend analysis system does for you can be done
with ordinary tools. You
can use a database system to load a large dataset; you can cleanse your own data by
writing database queries;
you can write programs
to build reports; you can dump data to pivot tables. You can get great answers to your
questions. Some old-school sourcing consultants still use manual methods like
these, and some home-grown spend analysis systems built around
tools like Microsoft Access are still operating today.

However, if you do use a modern spend analysis system, you can produce
those same pivot tables and reports with a few mouse-clicks; and, you can alter their
properties and constraints with slice-and-dice operations easily and quickly. For every
report that the old-school consultant generates, you’ll have had the opportunity to generate hundreds.
Does this mean that your insights will be better than those of the consultant? Not necessarily;
but it’s hard to argue that they shouldn’t be.

If your spend analysis system isn’t agile, though, you’ll be back in the same boat
as the crusty old consultant, and he’ll be laughing at you. You’ll have to extract
transactions from the system and hack at them with the same tools that the consultant
uses, with the same productivity loss.

Analysis = Power

It’s important to distinguish between ad hoc reporting and reporting in general.
Does the spend analysis system have the ability to produce complex and custom
reports, guided by you?
Or are its reports written in some programming language like Java or C++,
the source code for which is inaccessible to you
and unmodifiable by anyone but the vendor?

Analysis power is precisely the power that you wield as a business user,
independent of canned reports supplied by a vendor. Complex, multi-page
reports such as the original MMG Commodity Spending Report (below),
variants of which are now commonplace across the e-sourcing space, should
be within your reach to create quickly and easily — without any
programming, database queries, or other IT magic, and yet with full flexibility
to build whatever it is that you need.


Click the image to enlarge

Next: Spend Analysis V: New Horizons (part 1)