Monthly Archives: April 2010

There Are Fifty Ways IT Can Help To Optimize Global Supply Chain Management …

However, NOT ONE of the five ways offered up in this recent Supply & Demand Chain Executive article are included! Let’s look at the feeble five suggestions profferred up for (what I can only assume is for) our amusement:

  1. Partner Collaboration

    By it’s very definition, collaboration requires people to work together. It’s irrelevant if your systems talk to each other if your people don’t … and no fancy UI is going to get people talking if they don’t want to.

  2. Clear, Concise Communications

    If your people don’t speak the same language, no piece of software is going to fix that. You need to invest in training to overcome the cultural divide, not technology.

  3. Process Improvement

    All technology does is take your process and accelerate them. It doesn’t fix them. Unless your people undertake a project to methodically improve your processes, you’ll just end up executing your bad processes, 5, 10, 50, or 100 times faster.

  4. Invest Wisely in IT

    HUH? This isn’t even an action … it’s what you have to do! Is the article saying that IT can help you invest wisely in IT? I hope not! There’s no such thing as BI, SI, or any other XI vendors want to sell you. The intelligence is in your head, not the software. All the software can do is present you with the ability to look deep into your data to make a good decision.

  5. Manage Metrics

    Wrong again. Five for Feeble Five. Software tracks metrics. It doesn’t manage them … people do. And, as per my piece on why dashboards are dangerous and dysfunctional, if you track the wrong ones, your performance will only worsen over time!

While S&DC Exec usually isn’t at the top of my list when you ask me what the best publications in the space are, it’s usually not at the bottom either. I can’t tell if the editorial staff was sleeping at their desks when this article came their way or if they were jealous of all the recent attention I gave Purchasing who recently told us about Purchasing 0.3 and got it wrong again. What do you think?

Share This on Linked In

Don’t Fall for the FUD!

Now that money is trickling back into technology budgets, many vendors are going on the offensive again. As a result, you need to be ready for the emergence of the vendor FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) machine that is sure to resurface. We’ve already tackled how you calculate the true TCO/TVM of each product under consideration, thereby helping you to dispel the first piece of FUD you’re sure to hear, which will be along the lines of “we’re the cheapest and have the highest ROI, while our competitor is the most expensive and your ROI will be negative if you go with them“, but once you get past this, any vendor with a decently aggressive sales force will have more FUD loaded up and ready to fire (if they feel they are at a disadvantage). Here are three common pieces of FUD that, to be blunt, don’t mean nothing.

  • Our competitor is being sued (by us).

    So? Many of the lawsuits in this space are nothing more than desperate attempts by the bigger vendors, who haven’t innovated in years, to literally sue their smaller competitors out of commission with baseless lawsuits that plaintiff hopes will be too costly for the defendant to defend (as the plaintiff will attempt to draw the discovery phase out for years before the case gets inevitably thrown out).

  • Our competitor can’t do Fliggle-Flaggle-Floogle.

    Many vendors with less competitive or innovative offerings will focus on one or two impressive sounding (but essentially worthless) features that their competitors don’t have and turn up the tech talk dial to eleven in hopes of confusing you into buying their product. Don’t fall for the tech talk. It’s not about the technology, but about the value it can deliver to your organization. And sometimes its best not to buy the technology at all, but to contract with a consultancy or BPO who can maximize its potential (especially if the value curve flattens out quickly, as it does with tactical spend analysis [reference]).

  • You have to go all-in.

    Many providers will insist that you have to buy the whole suite, complete with licenses for every user in the organization, or you won’t realize the full value available to you. So what? It’s not about how many pennies you can squeeze out of the technology, but about how many pennies you can push down to the bottom line. Let’s say you can buy a solution for Procurement only from a competitor for 50K and that you expect you would drive 500K in savings from the purchase. Now let’s say you can buy their solution for the whole organization for 250K and drive 1.250M in savings. Which is better? The Procurement solution. It has a 10X ROI, compared to the 5X ROI the full organizational solution offers. Furthermore, when you look carefully, you see that the extra 200K only saves you an additional 750K, which is an ROI of only 3.75X. Yes, you want to save that additional 750K, but if you keep looking, you might find another 50K point solution from another vendor that will save you 500K of that 750K, which gives you another 10X ROI (and makes the organizational solution a bad buy since you’d now be spending another 150K to save 250K, which gives you an additional ROI of only 1.67X …. which means that one stumble on the organizational solution path and you would have been better off with the (much) less expensive and (much) lower risk point solutions).

And don’t forget, if the management/ownership team hasn’t changed much, what Tweety Bird has been saying for years still holds true. Don’t get fooled. Once a bad old putty cat, always a bad old putty cat. 

Share This on Linked In

Do We Really Need Supply Risk Programs Anyway?

Today’s guest post is from Pierre Mitchell, Director, Procurement Research and Advisory for The Hackett Group.

OK, now that I have your attention. Am I being provocative? Yes … and no. If the purpose of supply risk management is to ensure supply that is: available, reliable, high quality, well priced, supporting lowest TCO, ethically sourced, etc. (per the enterprise mission and brand), then we really “just” need to clarify what constitutes the performance of supply and the causal factors which impact it. But, this is a big “just”. It means first translating the performance of supply from the business (i.e., the true ‘risk owners’ who ultimately own the performance of supply) to the inbound supply chain to a commodity to the supplier and even down to the part/spec/site level — and then ensuring that your processes for extended network design, sourcing, and supplier management are addressing the risk factors that can impact that supply performance. That’s a tall order to expect as a bottoms-up outcome.

For example, if you look at a company’s sourcing and supplier management processes, you might find risk-oriented knockout criteria in an RFI. Or you might find a regulatory compliance driven process in supplier measurement. But for the latter example, do you have an explicit risk score in your supplier scorecard? Most organizations don’t. There is a direct analog to the quality area here in terms of placing emphasis on process capability and managing upstream causal factors. A TCO model that includes quality costs (i.e., a ‘cost of quality’ model) is not only similar, but actually overlapping with the ‘cost of risk’. In other words, you can pay for risk prevention now or pay for external failure later.

This is why, although you should theoretically be able to bake your supply risk management processes systematically into your existing supply management processes (sourcing, SPM/SRM, etc.), the fragmented and reward-biased performance measures don’t encourage this end-state approach. This is why a bottoms-up process usually does not work and it requires that Procurement/SCM not only work with the natural risk owners to build the cost/risk models, but also use that to have the top-down discussion with senior management on how the firm wants to deal with it and what is the cost of doing nothing. To quote the rock band Rush: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice“. (Freewill) And for some organizations, they might be able to tie into an existing enterprise risk management and corporate sustainability governance structure.

Another important strategy is to have a good diagnostic, and some external benchmarking intelligence, as part of this process — especially when trying to justify the effort beyond ‘it is the right thing to do’. Showing where you are vs. other firms and how well you/they are performing in supply risk (and comparing that performance to capabilities) is a good way to support the discussion. And so is having a good ‘cost of risk’ model. But quantification is tricky, and that’s why we launched a supply risk study about a month ago that we’re closing down this weekend, that uses this type of model (and other existing benchmark data that we have) to help firms arm themselves with some good insight on elevating the conversation. Why? To get more attention, resources, and proper measures/alignment that cascade back down to get baked into the processes. Once they’re baked in, you won’t need a ‘program’ anymore — you’ll have a proper risk-adjusted process. The corporate practitioner study takes 30-40 minutes or so, but like other Hackett performance studies, it is: complimentary, confidential, credible, and hopefully invaluable.

Thanks, Pierre!

Share This on Linked In

If Your Quest for Purchasing Fire Involves a Fight …

You better make sure you’ve picked a good one! Not only can your Quest for Purchasing Fire require a lot of work, but it can also require that you fight a number of battles with people who don’t want to change, don’t want to spend money, or just don’t want to admit that there might be a better way. As a result, if you want the odds to be on your side, you need to make sure that the fight you pick is a good one. To this end, a recent article in the Harvard Business Review on how to pick a good fight, which should be based on the kind of conflict that can spark creativity and innovation, can help you figure out if your fight is the right one.

Remembering that conflict is healthful only when people’s energies are pointed in the right direction and when carried out in a productive way, a good fight is material, focussed on the future, and noble in nature. More specifically:

  • The Fight Has Value.

    As per the article, the initiative you want to undertake should save 15% or more of your resources and time a year, allow you to charge at least 10% or more for your services than you do now, or grow your sales or market share faster than your competitors. If the initiative doesn’t have this level of significance, find another one.

  • The Fight Focusses on Future Possibility.

    The quest should not be about sorting out what happened in the past or figuring out who is accountable for the current state of affairs. That just won’t fly. Make sure you’re focussing on how to improve in a blameless way and that you’re proposing innovation and a vision the organization can get behind, with a little persuasion.

  • The Fight is Noble.

    The goal must be about more than making or saving money, reflect a larger organizational cause, and align with the values of the organization. Make sure it addresses risk, sustainability, or corporate social responsibility if you really want to tip the odds in your favour.

If you follow these tips, you’re well on your way to a successful Quest for Purchasing Fire. Bon voyage!

Share This on Linked In

AECsoft: SIM-Powered e-Negotiation, Part I

AECsoft, a Houston-based provider of Supplier Information Management (that also has offices in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Shanghai), Supplier Data & Diversity, and e-Negotiation solutions, is a unique platform offering as they have a very competitive (and very configurable) Supplier Information Management (SIM) platform (that can be augmented with third party supplier [diversity] data) as well as a solid e-Negotiation platform that will meet most of the needs of many mid-market companies. Most SIM companies focus mainly on SIM, SRM (Supplier Relationship Management), SPM (Supplier Performance Management), and when they branch out they root into extensive, customized, risk, compliance, or sustainability solutions. Furthermore, most e-Negotiation platforms, once they have gone as deep as they can in terms of surveys, score-carding, and multiple auction formats, branch out into (stronger) spend analysis, contract management, optimization, and (corrective) action management. In comparison, AECsoft has taken a dual approach in its efforts to create what it calls a 360° Supplier Management solution that allows you to discover suppliers, manage their information, use that information in sourcing events, and then manage their performance during contract execution — in a manner that can be customized for each client. Given that they have over 200 customers, including some of the most progressive sourcing organizations in the world, it’s obviously paid off for them to this point, but I have to wonder how they are going to fare going forward given the divergent messaging in the SIM and e-Negotiation spaces and the number of best-of-breed players now competing in each. However, that’s a question for the analysts as we’re concerned about what they have and what they can do for you.

To this end, we’ll start with a review of the Supplier Information Management capabilities, which are used by over 400,000 suppliers that are managed by over 30,000 buyers at over 200 large corporate clients, around half of which are large multi-nationals (and many of which belong to the who’s who of supply chain innovators). SIM is their most mature platform, with development dating back to company inception in 1997 and production dating back to their first implementation in 1999, as well as their most extensive. The platform is setup to let new suppliers self-identify, buyers pre-qualify (before an e-Negotiation event, so the event can focus on negotiations and not discovery), and evaluations to be conducted in a 360° manner if necessary. Compliance can be enforced during the on-boarding process (as registrations will not be marked as complete and ready for review until all fields are filled out and necessary documents uploaded), status can be monitored (as alerts indicating expiring certifications can be set-up at any time and continuously monitored), and reviews can be scheduled in advance and pushed out at any time.

The system can be configured to track any kind of information you want — general, business data, contacts, classifications, safety & insurance, quality, certifications, product & service information, risk and so on. In addition, category/answer specific questions and workflows can be configured for any category, sub-category, or question which is answered with a certain option. For example, if a supplier indicates they supply laboratory equipment, you can ask what kind — balances, centrifuges, pumps, valves, piping and tubing, and if they indicate piping and tubing, you can bring up questions on pressure, diameter, etc. Basically, it’s your standard workflow-driven SIM where the supplier, who can access and update all of their information at any time, maintains its own information, by way of one or more authorized delegates. In addition, when the supplier logs in, the supplier sees all of the outstanding information requests that need to be completed — new requests, certificate updates, data confirmations, scorecards (self-scoring or buyer scoring), and so on. AECsoft put a lot of work into their supplier portal to make sure it was at least as easy for the supplier as it is for the buyer and it shows.

And, of course, the platform can be integrated with multiple external data feeds which capture diversity data, financial/risk data, and OFAC data, among other data sources, and which can automatically check SSN and EIN data in the US.

Finally, the platform is Hybrid SaaS, which means that AECsoft can deploy and host it for you or you can deploy it inside your own four walls. Unless you’re in Finance, Gambling (Casinos), or Pharmaceuticals, and are ultra-concerned about security and have top IT security pros in-house, I would recommend you follow the lead of most of their clients in other verticals and go SaaS. However, should you choose to go in-house, you can take solace in that the current version of the platform is built on .Net 3.5, MS SQL Server, and XML … and there are tens of thousands of developers out there familiar with the technology stack (which is 100% web-based in delivery).

In our next post, we’ll discuss the e-Negotiation platform.

Share This on Linked In