Monthly Archives: January 2008

the doctor Gives You A Very Important Reason to Go SaaS

Those of you who read the On-Demand / Software as a Service Application Platforms wiki-paper on the e-Sourcing Wiki [WayBackMachine], already have fifteen (15) great reasons to go SaaS, which include:

  • Pay As You Go
  • Instant Deployment
  • Single Instance
  • Economies of Scale
  • Provider Handles Administration, Maintenance, and IT Headaches
  • Free Upgrades
  • The Customer Has the Leverage
  • Anywhere Access
  • Buy What Is Needed, And Only What Is Needed
  • Single, Accountable Entity
  • Regular, Automated Data Backup
  • Built for Change
  • Unparalleled Collaborative Capabilities
  • Integration with Office Applications
  • Low Total Cost of Ownership

However, perhaps the biggest reason you should go SaaS, is:

  • Sustainability

Reading the article “Analyzing Costs and Benefits”, I was reminded just how fast energy costs are rising (much faster than the referenced rate from the Energy Information Administration) and how much savings there is to be had just by reducing your energy needs.

And if you maintain all of your systems in house, then, unless you are manufacturer, one of your biggest energy needs is your IT data center – especially since you probably can’t afford to be updating all of your hardware every other year (like many modern data centers do). If you maintain PC-based servers for 4 (or 5 years), and mini-computers / racks for that long or longer, than your hardware needs are probably three or four times what they would be if everything was running on latest technology with real-time load-balancing and virtualization. Furthermore, chances are each of these machines is requiring at least twice as much energy to run as a modern machine with a lower power utilization processor and much better energy conservation technology. All in all, you’re probably consuming at least eight times as much energy as you need to be, especially when compared to an up-to-date data center used by a SaaS provider.

Furthermore, not only are you allowing for significant energy savings by using SaaS, but you’re also contributing to green in a big way, because the hardware resources of a SaaS provider are shared between multiple organizations. This not only allows for even more efficient resource utilization, but also reduces the amount of hardware, and thus the amount of future electronic waste, that will need to be recycled.

Supply Management in the Decade Ahead XII: Managing & Enabling the Supply Management Organization

This post continues our coverage of “Succeeding in a Dynamic World: Supply Management in the Decade Ahead” (a detailed report based on research jointly undertaken by the ISM, A.T. Kearney and CAPS Research), and concludes our review of the seven critical supply strategies for succeeding in a dynamic world in particular, tackling the sixth critical supply strategy identified by the report – enabling the supply management organization.

Over the past decade, companies have responded to strong competitive pressures by increasing the centralization of supply management. However, these strong competitive pressures have resulted in the need for an organization to implement best practices across the organization. To achieve this goal, companies are moving away from classic centralized organizations toward more center-led, hybrid, shared services organizations to allow them to take the best of the centralized and decentralized structures. Companies that have implemented these center-led organizations have, generally speaking, reduced costs, increased control over spend, and increased the value gained from the supply base.

Even though the research found that the top two strategies companies intend to use to enable the supply management over the next decade will be to (continue to) use a center-led model for supply strategy development (with decentralized execution) while centralizing strategic responsibilities, the authors note that the research data suggests that in some organizations, the supply organization, or part of it, will need to be tailored to respond to the external forces impacting the business the most and to align with the business model. This may mean that some categories need to be fully centralized while others need to be fully decentralized. The role of the center-led organization in these cases will be to fully manage the categories and transfer the knowledge required by the necessary (remote) personnel to order off of the enterprise contract in the first case and to provide the remote units the guidance they need to fully manage their categories in the second, while also insuring that all spend transactions are recorded in the central data store.

The report also notes that the following forces, strategies, and operational requirements will be quite significant in the decade ahead:

  • Need for Local Leadership
  • Cost Savings from Aggregation and Standardization
  • A Decline in Upward Pressures on (Some) Commodity Prices
  • Embedding Best Practices and Processes in Technology
  • Increased Mobility and “Instant” Productivity through Common Processes
  • Cross Unit Collaboration through Technology
  • Increased Control for Business Units
  • Appropriate Location of Supply Management Expertise

The study also found that continued pressure on supply management will drive more companies toward greater automation or outsourcing of select parts of supply management. Companies will centralize and automate transactions and free up resources or higher value supply management work, such as strategic sourcing or spend analysis.

Companies will also take a more holistic view of measuring supply management performance, using a balanced scorecard that balances cost savings, total cost of ownership, contribution to the business units and corporate, value achieved beyond cost, and predictive metrics that cover the financial, customer, operational, and innovation aspects of the supply chain.

the doctor Hopes That You Don’t Get Too Emotional (in Your Negotiations)

the doctor recently came across an article in The Negotiator Magazine titled “Emotion in Negotiation” that had some good advice on incorporating emotional awareness into negotiations, as long as you don’t take it too far, especially when you’re the buyer and the purchase under consideration is a technology solution.

The article suggests that because emotion is an integral and essential part of the human experience, that it is thus inherent in negotiation, especially since researchers have found that emotion is an integral part of reasoning and decision making. Furthermore, there is research that suggests that an absence of emotion has been found to have the same disruptive effect on decision making as strong negative emotion. Thus, the suggestion of the article is that in order to be a truly skillful negotiator, it is important to also be emotionally intelligent.

The article also suggests that being an emotionally intelligent negotiator involves not only emotional awareness, but the ability to use emotions in creative and adaptive ways. And although I heartily agree that Emotional Intelligence, or EQ, as us bloggers like to put it, is very important both in, and outside of, negotiations, I don’t think you should be relying on EQ alone for negotiations. You should be relying on heavy hitting analytics and expected ROI calculations.

Let’s face it … the big technology vendors, especially those without innovative solutions to sell, have known for years that their chances of making a sale increase greatly if they can get you emotional about their product. But you don’t want to be buying a product for how it makes you feel – you want to be buying a product for what it can do for you.

Moreover, you want to know how much value you expect to get out of the product. How much is the increased process efficiency really going to save you in manpower? (Chances are, not much.) More importantly, how much savings is the product expected to enable through advanced analytics, optimization, risk management, or spend visibility? Per year?

This is the basis for your negotiations. A conservative estimate of how much value you expect to obtain from the application. If you conservatively expect to save 10M per year, than you can conceivably pay as much as 1M per year for a solution. But if you only expect to save 2M per year, it doesn’t matter how good the solution makes you feel – spending 1M+ per year on it is just plain stupid.

I’m not saying that you shouldn’t pay attention to your emotions when evaluating technology solutions, or that you shouldn’t try to use them to your advantages in your negotiation with the technology vendor (should you get the chance), but that you shouldn’t be swayed by your emotions in making a decision.

Supply Management in the Decade Ahead XI: Attracting & Retaining Supply Management Talent

This post continues our coverage of “Succeeding in a Dynamic World: Supply Management in the Decade Ahead” (a detailed report based on research jointly undertaken by the ISM, A.T. Kearney and CAPS Research), and our review of the seven critical supply strategies for succeeding in a dynamic world in particular, with the sixth critical supply strategy identified by the report – the attraction and retention of supply management talent.

As far as the doctor is concerned, this is the most important strategy of them all. Without talent, there’ll be no one to implement your category management strategies, no one to develop your suppliers, no one to optimize your supply networks, no one to help you benefit from technology enablers, no one to collaborate with your partners, and no one to enable the supply management organization. (That’s why the doctor has an ongoing series on this blog about talent. You won’t succeed without it.)

The authors outlined three main areas that they believe companies need to focus on in the decade ahead:

  • identifying needed skills and capabilities
  • attracting, developing, and retaining talent
  • managing a diverse, dispersed workforce

This is a great start, but I’d also add, at the very least:

  • succession planning

As the study notes, a great deal will be expected of tomorrow’s supply management professionals, and this will be considerably more than what is expected of them today, even though some organizations already expect a lot. Tomorrow’s supply management professionals will have to find and leverage sources of innovation, contribute to revenue as well as savings, expand efforts to manage supply, address risk, and ensure business continuity and sustainability in a broad sense (and possibly before they even get their morning coffee).

As the report notes, to meet all of these requirements, supply management professionals will need the skills and capabilities to understand and interpret supply market dynamics, analyze complex supply options and risks, and develop value acquisition strategies that integrate with – while supporting – business and functional strategies. They’ll also need the skills required to properly implement the six other strategies being covered in detail in this series – category strategy development, supply base development, technology leverage, supply network optimization, collaboration, and supply management organization enablement.

The foundational skills will continue to center upon a combination of supply market knowledge and supply process expertise. Professionals will also be required to possess broad business knowledge and multi-disciplinary experience – the cross-functional skills, as well as international experience and foreign language skills – the cross-cultural skills. Finally, they’ll also need a collaborative style, innovative spirit, and leadership ability – the “soft-side” skills.

The top three talent management strategies identified by the respondents were:

  • Establish a knowledge and skill competency model for supply management
  • Recruit and/or develop talent with broad general management expertise for supply management roles
  • Recruit and/or develop talent with specific technical or foundational domain expertise for supply management roles

However, there will be no one-size-fits-all strategy. As the authors note, companies will need a thoughtful, multi-pronged strategy to acquire, develop, and retain individuals with the skills and competencies that they require. Companies will also need to cast a wider net and be far more aggressive and creative in identifying and attracting supply management talent.

Talent succession planning will also be important, as supply organizations face the loss of knowledge not just to retirement and recruitment efforts by other companies, but recruitment efforts from other organizations within the company who will increasingly realize that the most qualified people in the company are those in the supply management organization, where complexity is a way of life.

In addition, the ways in which companies adapt their training programs over the next decade will also be important to success. Training curricula will also need to be expanded and constantly refreshed to support the broader skill sets and deeper expertise required of individuals in the processes and supporting technologies required to deliver value from supply markets. In addition, training programs will need to support cross-functional teams and not just the individual. These training programs will also have to integrate tightly with knowledge management to capture what the organization collectively knows and make that information available to new staff anywhere in the company, regardless of where they are physically located in the world, to more quickly overcome the learning curve that will continue to creep up steeply over the decade ahead.

Also, companies will have to compensate their top supply management talent accordingly – and move beyond the so-called “one-percent” dilemma (where top performers receive 4% raises while poor performers receive 3%) because if you won’t compensate your top performers, you can be damn sure your competition will. To keep your top talent, superior individual performance will need to be reflect in both base pay and incentives. Remember, it takes somewhere between five and twenty dollars of sales to have the same impact to the bottom line as every dollar of savings achieved by a supply management professional. Given this fact, who should be compensated more in your organization? The sales person that reached his million dollar quota, the marketing executive that made it easy for him to do so, or your category manager who trimmed a million dollars off of the top? If you answered the sales person or the marketing executive, then I wish you good luck when you find yourself in the unemployment line in three years because because you didn’t have the supply talent to foresee and mitigate that major supply chain disruption that put your company into bankruptcy. (On average, a company has a major supply disruption every twelve months these days … and that number is shrinking fast among those without the talent to develop and implement the appropriate visibility and mitigation strategies.)

Talent management will be the deciding factor between success and failure in tomorrow’s supply management organization, so the doctor sincerely hopes that, for your sake, you get it right. (And just remember, if you need help, the doctor is an experienced academic and professional lecturer and trainer, has a lot of strength in knowledge management, and is also quite good at process development – which is key in succession planning. the doctor is also quite good at working with third parties and can help you in your selection, and management, of partners should you decide to outsource some or all of your recruitment efforts. For more information on what the doctor does, see What Does the doctor Do? For Executives.)

the doctor’s Not Going To Stop Until He Exposes All Of The Elephants!

Late last fall in the doctor wonders why the elephants in the room are often so hard to see and the doctor exposes the elephants in the room I exposed the elephants in the room that were hiding behind the blinds, couch, lamp, and projection screen. But this is a very big room – and it is jam-packed with elephants. So today, in addition to the optimization, compliance, analysis, enablement, contract management, and hidden cost elephants, I’m going to expose the elephants hiding behind the coat rack, the bar, and the water cooler.

We’ll start with an RFX elephant, who’d have you believe that the number of pre-configured templates in the template libraries are an important selling point of an e-RFX tool. It’s not. After all, every business is different and, in reality, you’ll probably have to customize every single standard template that’s provided to meet your business needs before you can use it. That tells you it’s the flexibility of the tool when it comes to RFX creation that’s important – especially since, no matter how many templates are offered, there’ll always be templates that are missing that you need to create yourself.

Now we’ll move on to the e-Payment elephant who will tell you it’s the platform that matters – and, believe-it-or-not, who provides it. Although it’s important that the company that provides the platform be financially stable, it doesn’t have to be owned by a bank or the biggest player in the space to be useful, because, when it comes to e-Payment, it’s not the payment platform that matters – but whether or not it enables your organization. Does it support the types of payments you regularly make? (If you do a lot of p-card and ACH, and it only supports wires and ACH, then there’s a problem.) Does it automate the capture and transmission of all of the payment details that are required by your e-Procurement / EIPP systems as well as your accounting systems? Does it simplify the transactional processing, freeing up manpower for exception handling and more strategic purchasing responsibilities? Because these are the things that matter!

We won’t forget about the technology RFP elephant though – because this big-daddy of elephants, who is often willing to provide us with RFP templates for any technology we might want to put out to bid, will have us believe that you should be evaluating a solution based on the number of (pseudo-) standard features it has, and not whether it has the functionality you need. This is absurd – especially when you aren’t familiar with the technology! After all, why do you care whether or not it has 300 features you probably don’t need? And how do you evaluate solution A with 350 features vs solution B with 315 features vs solution C with 385 features when the common feature overlap between all three solutions is only 60% based upon your unduly long, inept, and inappropriate RFP that this technology elephant gave you. You need a solution that has the functionality that supports the business processes that you need. To do this, especially when you are unfamiliar with the solutions you’ll be evaluating, you need to send out a rather open-ended RFI that describes the processes you need and the problems that you are having and that asks the vendors to describe how their tool solves these problems. Then, you take the top 3 – 5 RFIs, figure out what your minimal baseline is with regards to key capabilities, and send back a more detailed RFP that outlines the core functionality you need (and any industry standard features you’re aware of that are also required), additional functionality you’d like, and the timeframe you’d like to deploy it in and note that formal submissions will not be considered until you get a full demo (if you haven’t had one already). But still, it should be short. Closer to 60 questions than the 600 or so “feature questions” that I’ve been hearing about from some vendors lately if you’re really focussing on what you need and not the market mumbo-jumbo that the elephants are feeding you.

So take heed, elephants hiding in the closet, behind the door, and under the boardroom table – because you’re next!