Monthly Archives: February 2010

When it comes to Public e-Procurement, is North America a Third World Country?

I have to wonder after reading this recent article on “the power of online real-time bidding” in The Global Graft Report. The article described Chile’s procurement system which goes beyond the simple e-tender submissions common in Canada and the US and actually uses real e-Procurement functionality, including real-time, public e-auctions.

Chile’s system is simple and cost-effective. Government agencies submit a projection of their needs to a website. It compiles a list of the requirements and then invites suppliers to bid. Their proposals are concurrently submitted to the website, where all bidders and the general public can see what’s offered. The real-time aspect of the program allows suppliers to adjust their bids depending on what other bidders are offering, spurring more competition. At every step, the process is completely transparent.

That’s the way it should be. Not a one-time sealed bid submission against a probably incomplete specification, with the award going to whomever is the lowest cost among the suppliers deemed competent to “deliver the goods”. (Which allows corruption to run rampant in the hands of the less than worthy, who can judge who is and is not competent to deliver without consequence.)

Especially now that modern systems can handle bid packages as complex as you want them to be! And hey, as the Swedish Public sector found out, if you throw optimization into the mix, you can truly get optimized auction results.

Share This on Linked In

The New How, A Book Review

Nilofer Merchant’s The New How: Creating Business Solutions through Collaborative Strategy is a great book for those that truly want to collaborate but also need a framework for collaboration along with some practical advice on how to actually get down to the business of collaboration. A veteran of strategic thinking and innovation in the business context, Nilofer goes beyond simple academic frameworks and packs each chapter with examples and real-life situations that illustrate her points.

Furthermore, while the book does introduce some new terminology that, for the most part, is unnecessary, it’s pretty much limited to:

  • The New How
    which is Nilofer’s way of saying that siloed businesses can no longer survive and that they have to embrace more collaborative ways of working together,
  • The Air Sandwich
    which is Nilofer’s way of referring to the void that exists between the executive suite and the trenches in an average large organization, filled by middle management who are supposed to be bridging the gap but who, usually, only widen it with their inability to truly understand both the corporate strategy and shop floor details that they are not part of on a daily basis,
  • Murderboarding
    which is Nilofer’s process of using a razor-sharp tool to slice away at fuzzy thinking and kill off good ideas to let the great ideas thrive, and
  • Chief of Answers
    which is Nilofer’s characterization of the current, doomed, organizational model where one person is responsible for driving all strategy.

Furthermore, while most of the book is focussed on Nilofer’s QuEST (Question, Envision, Select, and Take ownership) process for the collaborative creation of strategy, Nilofer also realizes that collaboration requires more than just a process. Thus, the first part of the book spends a couple of chapters on how to “be” a collaborator — which requires us, at a minimum, to listen and understand, and the last part of the book focusses on the bigger picture and provides us with the “glue” necessary to mesh the people with the process in a way that can produce real results.

But what makes the book great is that even if you tossed the framework, every chapter is filled with practical, down-to-earth advice, on how to become a true collaborator and real-world examples of not only how to apply the concepts, but what might happen if you don’t. For example, Nilofer starts the book by describing one of her own experiences where she was in charge of revenues for the Americas in a large multi-national software company. She described how, one day, the VP dropped by to explain how the company had decided to diversify their product line six-fold within the coming eighteen months — with no input at all from the trenches or even (senior) middle management — based solely on the results of a market exploration which convinced senior management it was “the right idea”. Somehow, sales and marketing would generate demand while new products were developed in parallel. The CEO said “We Must”, the (senior) VPs said “We Will”, and everyone charged forward on the vision, and edict, handed down from on high.

The results were, as we would now expect, predictable. A few months into the new revenue cycle, Nilofer received a call from the lead product manager for the new suite. It started off with “We have a problem here. You know the lead product? Yeah, the one that’s supposed to net us most of this year’s revenue? We’re not going to be able to ship it with all the features we originally planned.” Meetings and chaos resulted, with the typical end-result where the product was shipped on the planned release date, knowing full well it wouldn’t live up to the expectations marketing had created. And it didn’t sell well. Revenues were weak. Customers that bought were unhappy. The team was demoralized and the corporate culture took a nosedive. Several talented staff members resigned. And it took a while for the company to recover.

And it was all preventable. Had the strategy not been created in a vacuum in the senior executive suite, but collaboratively with the front-lines who could have provided feedback on what could be done, and when, chances are that a simpler vision could have been successfully delivered to greater profits than the unmaintainable grand vision that was decided on the simple basis of a market-study with no cross-company input.

After all, as Nilofer points out in the Introduction, there’s not much difference between strategy success and strategy failure. The formula for both is summarized as:
good intent + good idea + talented direction + hard work + "magic black box".

The difference is that in a successful strategy, the “magic black box”, or the details of a successful execution are worked out before the strategy is adopted and launched. Strategy fails when the keys to making a strategy operational cross-functionally are not uncovered soon enough. This happens when a company jumps from “grand vision” to “execution” without sufficient exploration and planning, not because the idea is bad, or the direction is off, or the people aren’t talented and hard-working enough. And that’s why Nilofer wrote the book, to try and help people understand how to replace the “magic black box” with a “successful execution strategy” so that you can be a winner every time. (Because winning today is not enough, you have to win tomorrow, and smart companies go for a series of smaller wins rather than betting the farm on one big win.)

And while I’m not going to get into the nitty gritty details and give it all away, since this is another book I believe you should carefully read cover-to-cover (I did), I am going to give you some examples of the practical, down-to-earth advice that the book is crammed with.

  • Even bright, talented, and motivated people cannot jointly create effective strategies until the fundamental enablers of collaboration are in place.
    Some people have to be guided, and, more importantly, the organization has to foster a culture of collaboration. If the corporate culture is “I own my domain, you own yours” and every manager is always trying to one-up the manager down the hall for greater recognition from the CEO, collaboration is not going to happen.
  • Setting direction is an art and a practice.
    Just like strategy is a noun and a verb. You have to have a vision not only of a goal, but of a realistic execution strategy to get to the goal.
  • The hallmark of thorny strategy problems is that they involve contradiction – that is, they contain a set of conflicting goals or imperatives that create a tension that defies objective resolution.
    And there’s rarely just one right answer. To find the answer, you’ll have to take on tough debates, uncover tacit issues, and work with your “foes” to developer a deeper understanding of the issue that will allow everyone to collectively reach a solution that everyone can live with, get behind, and execute on. Furthermore, by acknowledging and addressing those tensions as we develop ideas rather than smoothing things over, we’ll end up with an even stronger, more viable set of options. It’s one of those pay-me-now or pay-me-later choices.
  • It often happens that our Achilles heel as leaders is attempting to come up with the answers and solve the tough problems by ourselves.
    Even a genius doesn’t know everything, and a true genius admits it.
  • In the long run, what truly matters is not what each of us knows today, but out ability to continue expanding the aperture of what each of us can see and understand tomorrow.
    That’s pretty much the reason Sourcing Innovation exists!
  • Powerpoint slides are just another form of air in the sandwich.
    Powerpoint slides capture high-level ideas, not understanding. For a corporate strategy to be successfully executed, everyone in the organization has to understand it, not just 1 in 20 individuals (which is the number of individuals who understand corporate strategy in your typical organization today). You don’t want to be in the situation where you were looking for a strategy, but only found a PowerPoint.

Share This on Linked In

Another Way Supply Chain Optimization Increases Profits

A recent article in Supply Chain Brain on “Planning and Managing Demand: A Modern Supply Chain Imperative” provided a great example of how you could use scenario-based what-if optimization to slash costs and increase profit at the same time.

Another approach [to maximize the profitability of a given inventory investment] is for operations to look at the sales pipeline and see that a customer is currently in the pipeline and is expected to order 50 widgets. What if sales approached that customer with an offer of $1/widget price reduction on 20 widgets if they made a decision within two weeks? Assuming the customer accepted the offer, how much does it impact revenue and profitability?

[Let’s say that] in the original factory order, total revenue would have been $1,500 (100 at $15/widget). Cost of the factory order is $630 (90 at $7/widget) plus $90 (10 at $9/widget) for a total of $720. Margin is thus 52 percent [because a widget costs $5, a $60 container holds 30 widgets and a partial container cost $4 a widget].

[But] what is the situation if the discount offer is accepted? Total revenue for the order would be $1,500 (100 at $15/widget) plus $280 (20 at $14/widget), or $1,780. Total cost of the order would be $840 (120 at $7/widget). Margin increases to 53 percent. By cutting prices the company ends up making more money. Furthermore, it does not impact total demand (since the customer would have made the purchase anyway), but rather it affected profitability and cost, since the customer saved $20, and the company saved an equal amount.

And this is something you could easily figure out with a good scenario-based what-if decision optimization solution that allowed you to adjust prices to see what offers you could make that would benefit you and your customer(s).

Share This on Linked In

What’s Really At Risk This Year?

The recent SCMR article on “Supply Chain 2010” addressed the following as what’s at risk in 2010.

  • currency-driven inflation
    Especially for U.S. based companies … because that’s what happens when you start flooding your local economy with government paper.
  • lengthy recovery
    I thought this was pretty much understood … especially with every major publication running a story on the “jobless recovery” on a weekly basis.
  • more financial crises
    The article refers to the large block of bonds, notes, credit lines, and other paper assets scheduled to mature in early 2011. Then you have all of the government debt, including the 56 Billion in Dubai World that just said it needed to delay payments on the 29 Billion of that in Nakheel for at least six months, and potentially worse situations in Greece or Italy.
  • interruption of supply
    the risk that the supplier will go out of business, cut off the buyer’s contract, or simply run out of product is still there
  • “black eye” risk
    is your supplier sustainable, responsible, and fair … or is your supplier producing your products in a sweat-shop in a third world country? (for example)
  • compliance issues
    a government regulator could come knocking down your door if a supplier or manufacturer runs afoul of the law

But these are essentially the same risks we saw in 2009. So what should you really be looking out for? I’d start with a focus on these often ignored risks:

  • lack of global trade visibility
    there’s already 106 steps to global trade, it’s only going to get worse before it gets better, and missing even one of them could cost you Millions in fines (especially since we’re now in the penalty phase of 10+2)
  • lack of flexibility
    you need to be demand driven, on short production cycles, and constructing scenario-driven long term plans which you can tweak at least quarterly as it’s likely going to be a long, rocky recovery to the Old Normal
  • lack of education
    to do more with less, your people need to know how to do more with less, and that means they need to be better educated; fortunately, supply chain is the one area where education can deliver returns in excess of 100:1 so make sure your people get at least a week’s worth of education every quarter

Share This on Linked In

Yet Another Feather in Private Equity’s Cap

A recent article in CNNMoney.com on best places to work pointed out that if you look at Fortune’s latest list of the 100 Best Companies to Work For, you’ll note an interesting trend: you can’t buy stock in four of the top five. In fact, 9 of the top 20 best companies are privately held and 40 of the top 100 do not have stock you can buy and sell on the NYSE or Nasdaq. There are also 15 non-profits, 2 partnerships, and 1 cooperative. In all, only 42 companies of the top 100 are public.

What gives? The author’s theory is that without having pesky shareholders to satisfy, these firms can probably worry more about keeping employees happy than satisfying the whims of Wall Street. And, more importantly, these employees can, in turn, worry more about keeping the customers happy, which generally boils down to better products and better services, which they can focus on instead of trying to meet artificial sales numbers or profit estimates. After all, the “over-promise now, make up later” strategy generally only results in under-delivery, which triggers cancelled contracts or bad publicity, which lowers profitability, which in turn demands layoffs, which stresses out the people who are left, who either leave or perform worse, which exacerbates the situation and puts the company into a funk it might not recover from.

So when you’re upgrading that platform or looking for world-class consulting services, remember this: just like bigger is not better, public is not necessarily better either. In fact, this recent survey on “the voice of experience” in the McKinsey Quarterly indicates it might actually be worse!

Share This on Linked In