Monthly Archives: April 2012

Will Your e-Auction Be A Success? Or Will You End Up in Court?

As an April Fool’s joke, SupplyManagement.com ran a piece about how a court battle looms over e-auction “error” which discussed a fictional case in the UK High Court as a result of legal proceedings initiated by a Chinese business in an attempt to hold a supplier to a price submitted in an e-auction. According to the article, one independent consultant William Sommers (represented by the UK law firm Jester & Prank), said he was participating in an e-auction for project management services while working at home where he left his iPad alone for a few moments to answer the door. He claims that during that time his daughter grabbed the iPad (because she loves a bit of Angry Birds) and must have pressed something to place a bid on his behalf as he returned to the iPad to find a bid he couldn’t change. As a result, to honour the bid he would have had to offer his services for “almost nothing” for a three-month project and argues that the supplier, Hohhot Axle Industries, is being unreasonable in trying to hold him to an offer that was a “genuine mistake”.

While this article was a prank, the issue it discusses is all too real. As pointed out in this recent piece on a genuine bargain or a genuine mistake, (poorly designed) e-auction software makes it very easy for buyers to submit incorrect bids and, even worse, correct bids that the supplier might decide, after the heat of the auction is over, that it does not want to honour. What do you do when its time to sign the contract, after you’ve informed all of the other suppliers that they lost and won’t be getting your business, and the supplier tries to back out? Especially if you need the goods or services quickly?

Chances are you panic and pay more because not only were the other bids higher, but when you desperately have to scramble to find product quickly, suppliers will know they have the upper hand and won’t be as competitive as when they (believed) they had to compete for your business. You’re taking a loss. But can you recover it in court?

As the above article indicates, if one party makes an error that the other party should know is a genuine error, the offer, even if it is an implied contract, can be rendered void by the courts. In fact, if the court believes that the details or circumstances of the offer from one party are such that the other party should know that a genuine error has been made, or the council for the party can argue that the other party should have known that a genuine error has been made, that is enough to void an offer.

So what can you do to prevent this from happening? Take lots of precautions.

  1. Describe the auction process in detail.
    Describe end-to-end how the event is going to play out from the initial invitation, through the pre-event data collection and supplier qualification, to the actual auction and the final contract award. There should be no unknowns in the supplier’s mind.
  2. Define the rules and force a bidder to accept the rules.

    Describe the rules for participation, the process for bidding, and the terms and conditions associated with the contract award up-front and force the supplier to accept all of the rules, processes, and terms and conditions before they can participate in the event.
  3. Create a secure account for each individual authorized to use the system and force them to accept full responsibility for the account.
    Force each representative to assert that this is their account, they take full responsibility for it, no one else will be allowed to use it, and they take full responsibility for all offers made through the account.
  4. Use software with controls and make sure you use the controls.
    Not only should you force confirmations on bids to prevent “genuine mistakes”, but you should also put limits on how much lower a bid can be with respect to the current lowest bid (to minimize errors as a bid should not drop from 10,000 to 100, which would indicate either a decimal point error or a misunderstanding as to lot size) as well as an absolute floor that defines the minimum acceptable bid (as you should not accept a bid that you know is lower than the theoretical lowest cost based on your cost model and the maximum efficiency that is achievable).

While this may not be enough to guarantee that 100% of bids will have to be honoured, as you cannot always predict the results of a court case if an argument were to go to court, it certainly puts the odds in your favour and minimizes the chances of a supplier making a bid that the supplier would be uncomfortable in honouring (especially since you’d have a stronger case if it went to court).

Is Supply Chain Losing the Talent Race?

PWC recently released a report on Winning the Talent Race which was Volume 5 of its study on talent management. Although it contained some not altogether unexpected results (given the talent shortage predictions back in 2007 and the lack of focus on talent management in Supply Chain), the numbers are still quite shocking in magnitude. Not only are 400,000 more truck drivers needed in the US trucking industry alone (up from about 100,000 five years ago), but current estimates by the CSCMP (Council of Supply Chain Management Professionals) are that the US trucking industry will need to hire 1 Million new drives in the next 15 years just to deal with replacing retirees (as 35% of professionals in the transportation and logistics industry are over 50) and projected freight level increases!

But the real problem is that, first of all, this problem is global. Across North America and the EU we have the situation where 35%, or more, of our professionals are nearing retirement age and the number of potential recruits (eligible to hold a commercial driving license) is not keeping pace in an industry where the number of professionals needed to keep pace with global trade. Global trade is expected to at least triple in the next 20 years, due largely in part to emerging markets around the globe, and as a result, the number of professionals needed to staff the industry is going to triple in the next 10 to 15 years (as they need to be hired in time to get the requisite training and experience to take over before we lose all of our greybeards).

And, second of all, rising stars do not want to work in the industry. The researchers found that the new generation of recruits typically view jobs in the T&L sector as “dead-ends” because of factors including low wages, unfavourable working environments, and a lack of career advancement opportunities and that 27% of current T&L workers compromised in accepting a job they felt had less career potential / opportunities for advancement than they had hoped and over 50% of logistics and supply chain professionals are actively looking for another job with better offers. This is terrible and shocking. Supply chains fuel the business world and half of the people we have want out?

But we shouldn’t be surprised. When was the last time your organization actually did something to address the talent management issue that has been on your top three list for the last five years. If you’re honest, chances are your answer is a number that is further than five years in the past or never. Every year for the past four years, like The Mpower Group who has also been trying to address this issue for a couple of years, I heard lots of chatter about how this was going to be the year the organization was going to take the talent bull by the horns and get it in line and every year nothing got done as the training budget was the first to go in the lingering downturn and focus was shifted back to cost savings at all cost. You can’t ignore a talent management issue year over year and expect that it will just fix itself from an organizational viewpoint. The only thing that will happen is that whatever talent you have will leave and take your talent reputation with you. (And good luck attracting new talent then.) If you think your problems are bad enough now, imagine how bad they’ll be when you have no points of talent attraction in a world where talent is attracted to, and finds, talent.

Remember, we are entering the age of connectedness where, thanks to global mega-platforms like LinkedIn and Facebook, everyone is connected to everyone else within 5 degrees of separation (actually, 4.6 and falling), and everybody knows that the dice are loaded, rolling with their fingers crossed. And everybody knows that when your top talent leaves that the plague is coming and moving fast (and, thanks to Facebook, they know before you do). That’s why one of the major recruitment weak points that the survey pointed out is social media. Unfortunately, Transportation, Logistics and Supply Chain is way behind on this front and losing ground fast.

Of course, recruitment isn’t the only issue. As the survey discovered, it’s also compensation, career path, and corporate brand. Rising stars want to feel that they are getting the best offer out there, that they can progress up a career path, and that they are working for a great company. A quick look at the top employer lists doesn’t include many (if any) T&L companies and only a few are known for their world class supply chains. Companies like Apple, where the CSCO (Chief Supply Chain Officer) can become next-in-line for CEO, need to be the norm, not the exception (and a career path from logistics manager to CSCO has to exist for the right hard-working, ambitious, and ready to learn superstar). In addition, as the report points out, the lack of diversity and understanding of demographic shifts isn’t helping.

In short, if your organization doesn’t kick its Supply Management Talent Management program into high gear this year, it may not be around in five years to figure out how it’s going to replace 35% of its staff.

Good Data Will Not Guarantee Good Decisions … But Informed Skeptics Increase the Odds

In our last post, we noted how great it was to see this recent article in the Harvard Business Review on how Good Data Won’t Guarantee Good Decisions because investments in analytics can be useless, even harmful, unless employees can incorporate that data into complex decision making and only 38% of employees and 50% of senior managers, on average, are equipped to make good decisions given good data. As pointed out by the authors, there are too many “unquestioning empiricists” and “visceral decision makers” and not enough “informed skeptics” who can effectively balance judgment and analysis with strong analytic skills and a willingness to listen to others’ opinions, but dissent if necessary.

As a result, organizations need to do whatever they can to increase the number of informed skeptics within their four walls. So what can they do? According to the authors, they can:

  • Train workers to increase data literacy
    and more efficiently incorporate information into decision making so they can make better decisions and
  • Give the workers the right tools
    to turn the data into information.

With respect to training, the authors recommend workshops and coaching. Workshops can teach them that they must understand the factors and calculations behind the numbers and learn to think critically about the accuracy, sample sizes, biases, and quality of their data. Even people who took statistics in college could probably use a refresher to help them apply what they learned then to their current jobs … especially since most people, analysts included, don’t understand statistics. (Remember that there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.) Coaching by people-oriented data experts can provide informal, ongoing training to employees that can gradually improve their skills. Given that surveys indicate that only 25% of all knowledge workers receive effective training in information analysis and use, this is a good start.

With respect to tools, there is a vital need to interpret data displays in a manner that allows them to deduce the information the data contains. Just because most executives choose to go with good-enough data now vs. perfect data later doesn’t mean it’s the right thing, not because perfect data is always a useful goal (as sometimes good enough is good enough), but because, without the right tools and understanding, it’s not always clear if good enough is good enough.

But is this enough?

No.

Three factors are always required for success: technology (tools), talent (training), and transition (change management of the process). Overlooking how the training is to be applied, the technology is to be used, how the results are going to be interpreted, and how the change from dumb data to intelligent information is going to be implemented so that it sticks, the training takes hold, the technology gets used, and the results get repeated is very important. Otherwise, a few moderate wins will be made, but as pressure mounts to get things done, the talent will revert to the old ways and the tools and training will be for nought.

Good Data Will Not Guarantee Good Decisions

It was great to see this recent article in the Harvard Business Review on how Good Data Won’t Guarantee Good Decisions now that we are in the age of “Big Data” (which, in business, is Bullshit in Guise) and everyone is diving into their OLAP and reporting tools without even a clue as to what they are (or should be) looking for. There’s data. There’s information. There’s knowledge. There’s the intelligence required to understand it. And then there’s the wisdom to choose the right course of action.

As the authors state, investments in analytics can be useless, even harmful, unless employees can incorporate that data into complex decision making.

In the article, the authors summarized the result of a study by the Corporate Executive Board that evaluated 5,000 employees at 22 global companies. The study separated the employees into three groups:

  • Unquestioning Empiricists
    who trust analysis over judgment
  • Visceral Decision Makers
    that go exclusively with their gut and
  • Informed Skeptics
    who effectively balance judgment and analysis with their strong analytic skills and willingness to listen to others’ opinions but dissent.

Only the latter group are equipped to make good decisions, and, not unexpectedly, only 38% of employees and 50% of senior managers fall into this group.

And when you consider that their analysis also found that the functions where the employees had the highest average scores performed 24% better than other functions across a wide range of metrics (including effectiveness, productivity, employee engagement, and market-share growth), this is not a good thing.

Why is this the case? The researchers identified the following four problems that prevent organizations from realizing better returns on their data investment:

  • analytic skills are concentrated in too few employees
    just because you have a few experts doesn’t mean that the analytics skills will trickle down
  • IT spends too much time on “T” and not enough on “I”
    IT is used to working with functions where business needs are clearly defined, stable, and relatively consistent … when the needs become less defined, IT becomes less able to support them
  • reliable information is hard to locate
    many organizations lack a coherent, accessible structure for the data they’ve collected; the authors found in their survey that fewer than 44% of employees say they know where to find the information they need for their day-to-day work
  • business executives don’t manage information well
    (at least when compared to capital and brand) — they focus on more physical or traditional assets

While not addressed, and possibly not covered, by the study, I’d also add the following to the list:

  • No Good Roadmaps Exist
    Analytics skills are not enough — a guide on how to find the needle in the haystack is also required; take Spend Analysis for example … how many practical guides exist? (At least one.)
  • Lack of EQ
    as an employee needs to not only understand where to look, but when something is worthwhile to chase and when it’s not as there is a need to understand the business impact of what the data might be suggesting which requires understanding the business needs as well as the data

So what can an organization do to get more informed skeptics?

Invoking Innovation In Your Organization Internally

Supply Management magazine recently ran a great piece on innovation from the head of SRM at Best Buy Europe (where they might have it together better than Best Buy USA where you are not likely to get a Best Buy Experience) on Creative Industry where he described the difficulty of jump-starting an innovation initiative in an organization which has not been innovative in a (very) long time.

In the article, he detailed and exemplified an eight step process which is a good starting point for anyone trying to get in an innovative mindset.

  1. Lose the Fear
    Of being judged. Of disappointing others with your idea. Of just plain doing something different. Jamie says to be childlike in your approach and embrace the initiative with excitement. And if that don’t work, and it’s not against your religion, start with martini hour. Inhibitions are bad for innovation.
  2. No Idea is a Bad Idea
    It might not be the right idea for the organization, but it doesn’t mean it’s necessarily bad. In different circumstances, it could be a great idea. All ideas should be captured, and explored, at the right time, in a search for a better idea.
  3. Understand the problem.
    What is the issue? What is the objective? It’s the measurement stick for any idea you come up with.
  4. Diversity is King
    Have both experts and novices in the room. Make sure the novices are not afraid to ask “why can’t we do this”. Sometimes opposition is just knee-jerk. When there is no rebuttal to the question, you’re on the right track.
  5. Get Visual
    Draw. Illustrate. Sculpt clay if you have to. Make a prototype out of cardboard and play-doh. Whatever gets people thinking differently enough to actually innovate.
  6. Safe Environment
    Everyone is equal. No idea is bad. Freedom to speak up and speak out during the brainstorming process. Keep it out of management offices where positions of authority are implicitly conveyed.
  7. Subdue the subconscious
    It has default knee-jerk reactions to everything and default knee-jerk visualizations for every concept and pre-assigned meanings to every word. This gets us through the day, but is not always good where innovation is concerned. (Of course, if you start with martini hour, this may not be much of a problem. 😉 )
  8. Be Committed.
    Almost to the point where a conservative middle manager (who doesn’t understand the importance of relentless innovation) wants to have you committed. It takes a lot of effort to get an innovation project rolling, and even more to keep it rolling until the first positive, revenue-producing, output is produced.

This is a really great starter list and Jamie’s article on Creative Industry is really good. Take 5 minutes and read it end-to-end. It’s worth your time.