Monthly Archives: December 2011

Why You Should Download The New Spend Visibility Implementation Guide Today!

Last Wednesday, Sourcing Innovation released it’s new white paper on Spend Visibility: An Implementation Guide. Clocking in at over 130 pages, this is the first white-paper to be released that not only defines what spend analysis and spend visibility really is, but that also offers a step-by-step, vendor-free, implementation guide that demonstrates how an organization can achieve substantial year-over-year savings.

One could argue that you should download it today because:

  • It’s chock-full of information that many spend analysis service providers don’t want you to know.
    The information within could result in many service providers losing a good chunk of their business if you found out that many of the “challenging” analyses they do for the organization (and charge thousands for) are, in fact, quick and easy for any analyst to do herself with the right package in a few hours.
  • It’s already been called the The Definitive Book on Next Level Performance
    by the author of the only independent (non-vendor) blog that’s been around longer than Sourcing Innovation in the space
  • It’s 100% FREE.
    No pay wall, no registration wall, and not even a cookie crumb is tracked!
  • It saw hundreds of downloads in its first week.
    Many sponsored white papers, even by leading analysts, top out at just a few hundred downloads over their lifetime behind a registration wall!

but the doctor is not going to make any of these arguments. Today, he’s going to make only one argument as to why you should download Spend Visibility: An Implementation Guide if you haven’t already. Simply put:

  • This White-Paper Could Lead To 100 Million Plus in Savings.

         Spend Analysis is one of only two sourcing technologies that has been repeatedly found to generate double-digit percentage savings year after year. (Typically 11%.) If a supply management department is sourcing 1 Billion dollars annually, this says it has a cost-reduction opportunity of approximately 110 Million before it. An opportunity that will only be realized with a proper spend analysis and visibility effort — which goes well beyond bringing in an automated spend analysis service that’s not going to go beyond your Top N categories, commodities, and suppliers.
         A typical supply management organization knows about 70% to 80% of its Top N categories, commodities, and suppliers already, focusses 80% of its effort on these categories, commodities, and suppliers and, as a result, typically only has, at best, 20% of its savings opportunity on these Top N categories, commodities, and suppliers. The biggest savings are often in the “Next N” categories which have not been strategically analyzed and sourced as the average organization often doesn’t know what they are or where the biggest opportunity lies. For example, a manufacturing centric organization might not realize just how much is spent on temporary labor in preparing for holiday seasons around the globe to get shipments out on time and ignore the spend which could be in the tens of millions. Unmanaged and unleveraged, this spend often contains a 30%, or more, savings opportunity the first time it is strategically sourced. If the organization was spending 50 Million on temp labor, that could be an instant 15 Million savings opportunity.
         Not only does this white paper cover the full ten step process required to do proper spend analysis and visibility, but also provides numerous examples of the types of analyses an organization needs to do to find all of the different opportunities available to it — and realize the year-over-year savings, which average at 11%, that are available to it. To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no other guide has ever done that.

So download Spend Visibility: An Implementation Guide today. The time and effort you put into learning the knowledge contained within will pay off one hundredfold, if not one thousandfold, as you apply the knowledge within.

Key Takeaways from the UL Product MindSet Study, Part II

A couple of posts ago, we discussed some Interesting Facts and Figures from the UL Product MindSet, a recently released study that quantitatively surveyed 1,195 manufacturers and 1,235 consumers across a range of export and import markets in high-tech, building materials, food, and household chemicals. Then, in our last post, we reviewed four key takeaways from the UL Product MindSet Study. Today we are going to discuss our fifth, and final, takeaway from the study.

MANUFACTURERS NEED TO GET A GRIP ON REALITY!

They need to take off those rose-coloured glasses, put them on the floor, and stomp them to bits. And then they need to take the bits and grind them into dust. The findings illustrate that manufacturers are so far out of touch with reality that it’s downright scary.

First of all, let’s review the standard Gaussian curve. In a standard curve, only 31.8% of the population is one standard deviation from the norm. If we accept that only one standard deviation from the norm is enough to be “ahead of the curve”, then, at most 15.9% of the population can be ahead of the curve (and, similarly, 15.9% of the manufacturers will be behind the curve). However, the report found that an extreme majority of manufacturers believed they were ahead of the curve in safety, reliability, sustainability, and innovation. In short, this means that:

  • 81.1% of manufacturers are out-to-lunch when it comes to product safety
  • 81.1% of manufacturers are day-dreaming when it comes to product reliability
  • 78.1% of manufacturers are high-on-fumes when it comes to sustainability
  • 73.1% of manufacturers don’t-have-a-clue when it comes to innovation

The reality for the majority of manufacturers (68.2%) is that, they are, at best, on the curve. But since the reality is that, if they don’t continue to progress as their supply chains evolve around them, it won’t be long before them are behind the curve, they should just assume they are behind the curve, because 15.9% of them are and 68.2% of them aren’t far from being among that 15.9% without continued improvement efforts. So when they are done grinding those rose-colored, haze-inducing, glasses into dust, they need to get to work!

Furthermore, I see no evidence that the majority of manufacturers understand sustainability. I know it’s hard with all the greenwashing out there, but if one just ignores the hype and uses a little common sense, one can define sustainability as that which sustains operations and the environment at the same time. With this definition, it is easy to see that if an organization is not reducing its environmental footprint and at least maintaining, if not increasing, profitability at the same time, it is not sustainable. So 69% of manufacturers are wrong when they say that environmental products aren’t profitable — because, defined (and designed) right, they are.

And those manufacturers who do understand some of the basics of sustainability obviously don’t understand it’s importance. First of all, it’s not just about sustaining the environment, its about sustaining operations for generations to come. If the resources available are depleted before they can be replenished, there’ll be no materials to make new products. No products, no profit. No profit, no business. It really is that simple. As a result, sustainability should be as important as safety and reliability, not only one-fifth as important. Secondly, with even the majority of consumers in developing countries (such as China where four-fifths of the population would buy a truly green product over a non-green product if proof of claims could be provided), an organization is leaving what is potentially the biggest gold-vein available to it untapped. And finally, if manufacturers as a whole don’t change their understanding and their views, then the lot of them are are being hypocritical! (It is impossible to be ahead of the curve in sustainability, as 94% of manufacturers ridiculously claim to be, while not placing the same importance on sustainability as is placed on safety and reliability.)

Yes this is harsh, but face it, manufacturers are not going to move forward if they continue to believe the all-rainbows-and-roses picture that some other misguided (or is that money-grubbing?) analysts are painting for them. But there is a bright side. Whereas a typical organization would probably pay five, or six, figures for that rainbows-and-roses report, this post is 100% free.
(So, to any manufacturer reading this, stop calling me a downer and get to work! If you do, maybe you’ll be one of the 15.9% that is truly ahead of the curve and reap the rewards that come from earning that status.)

Key Takeaways from the UL Product MindSet Study, Part I

Yesterday’s post conveyed some Interesting Facts and Figures from the UL Product MindSet, a recently released study that quantitatively surveyed 1,195 manufacturers and 1,235 consumers across a range of export and import markets in high-tech, building materials, food, and household chemicals. From these findings we will attempt to interpret where global manufacturing is going — and needs to go.

1. Global Manufacturing is going to continue to rise.

Not only did the top 10 export markets produce approximately 9.489 Trillion in exports in 2010, not only did growth rise an average of 13% in developed economies and 17% in emerging economies, and not only did manufacturing supply chains continue to increase to the point that an average product required 35 different global contract manufacturers, but 50% of manufacturers are still projecting, and endeavouring to increase, sourcing from additional countries. The reality is that many large multinationals, despite the increases in transportation costs brought on by the rising cost of oil, are still finding ways to make global sourcing profitable (and won’t leave the bandwagon until it breaks down to the point that it is irreparable).

2. Global Manufacturing, like Global Trade, is a Two-Way Street.

If one looks at the top exporters and top importers list, 9 of the top ten 10 countries on each list match. If an organization is going to manufacturer and trade globally, then the organization has to walk both sides of the fence and master both the importing and exporting game.

3. Going Global for Healthcare is Making More Sense by the Day

Not only is healthcare often cheaper and better in developing countries like China and India (where they have four times as many geniuses as the US), but when one considers that most of the medical devices and medications are coming from there anyway, and that the rich industrial centres have doctors that have training and equipment that rivals the training and equipment available to leading doctors in North America (and Europe), maybe an individual should go to India and pay out of pocket rather than risking his or her health (as he or she waits for 6 months to get treatment) and his or her financial solvency (as he or she waits to see if his or her co-pay coverage will kick-in or not). And if he has heart issues, the world-class Narayana Hrudayalaya Hospital in India probably beats the hospital down the street.

4. Selling Globally Is Starting To Make More Sense Than Selling At Home

China and India have four times the consumers, and China in particular is spending more on high-tech (and luxury) items than the US. And the general commitment to saving and financial solvency in Asia (as compared to the general commitment to borrowing from tomorrow to enjoy today that is prevalent in North America) means that that they have the money to spend if there is a product they want.

Come back tomorrow where we share our fifth, and final, takeaway from the Interesting Facts and Figures from the UL Product MindSet.

Interesting Facts and Figures from the UL Product MindSet

UL* (a safety science company) just released a new annual study on Navigating the Product MindSet — which resulted from quantitative interviews with 1,195 manufacturers and 1,235 consumers across a range of export and import markets in high-tech, building materials, food, and household chemicals — that had some interesting facts and findings that we should all be aware of. These include:

  • On average, manufacturing companies rely on more than 35 different global contract manufacturers to create a single product.
  • In the US, 50% of medical devices, 80% of medication ingredients, 75% of seafood, and 60% of fruits and vegetables come from other countries.
  • In the last year, global trade flows increased:
    • 12.9% in developed economies
    • 16.7% in developing economies
  • Per person, Chinese consumers are outspending US consumers 3 to 1 in High-Tech purchases
  • 81% of Chinese consumers would buy more green products if environmental claims could be substantiated
  • The majority of manufacturers believe they are ahead of the curve in:
    • safety (97%)
    • reliability (97%)
    • sustainability (94%)
    • innovation (89%)
  • The majority of manufacturers believe their quality and on-time delivery are the best-performing aspects of their supply chain with
    • 79% claiming consistent product quality
    • 71% claiming on-time product delivery
  • While 49% of manufacturers believe that product reliability & product safety are key factors in effective global competition, only 9% believe that designing sustainable products is a key factor (and only 8% believe operational sustainability is a key factor).
  • Only 31% of manufacturers consider environmental products to be profitable
  • 50% of manufacturers will increase sourcing from other countries

The Top 10 Export Markets are:

  1. USA
  2. China
  3. Germany
  4. Japan
  5. France
  6. UK
  7. Netherlands
  8. Italy
  9. South Korea
  10. Hong Kong

The Top 10 Import Markets are:

  • USA
  • China
  • Germany
  • Japan
  • UK
  • France
  • Italy
  • South Korea
  • Netherlands
  • Canada

So what does all this mean? Our next post will reflect on these findings.


* Underwriters Laboratories Inc.