Monthly Archives: July 2012

What Can be ‘Made in the USA’ – Counterpoint

Today’s guest post is from Dick Locke, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on International Sourcing and Procurement, and is a counterpoint to Derek Singleton‘s recent post on What Can be ‘Made in the USA’ over on Software Advice.

This is the kind of prediction I like to put in an envelope and promise to open in 5 years to see if it came true.

It’s great that Airbus came to the United States. There’s no doubt that many companies who tried China sourcing weren’t capable of doing it well. There was also a rush to put production in China that didn’t belong there. Those would be items that require flexible scheduling and for which air freight costs make China prohibitive for US consumption. No doubt some of that is in the $200B pie chart of products that are likely to move from China to the US. No doubt that Chinese labor costs are rising, but the 13% figure annual increase figure cited is for Chinese minimum wage, of questionable relevance to exports.

But $122B in computers and electronics? I really doubt that. That’s roughly 100% of the US imports from China of computers, phones, TVs and monitors, and parts for those items. Those aren’t being built in China for anything much to do with labor costs. It’s where the suppliers are. Foxconn has a million people assembling electronics. Why do manufacturers gravitate toward a particular location? Michael Porter, in “The Competitive Advantage of Nations” nailed it. It’s a combination of four factors.

  1. Factor conditions (this includes labor rates and a lot more)
  2. Related and supporting industries
  3. Demanding customers
  4. High degree of competition

China has three out of the four. They are especially strong in item 2. Nearly all the components are built there, except for a few high value parts.

Looking further, if companies pull out of China, where would they go? Phones, other than from Apple, largely come from Korean and Taiwanese companies.

Televisions are also largely from non-US companies. As they drop in price, shipping costs become a larger fraction of total costs, so many TVs for the North American market are being built in Mexico. (Mexican TV and monitor imports to the US passed China’s a few years ago.)

We’ll see how the prediction holds up. In the meantime, strategic sourcing professionals should make up their own minds, not just look at trends or predicted trends.

Thanks, Dick. (Global Supply Training)

Markets are Unpredictable – Is It Time For Old Fashioned Futures?

Recently, the Economist published a piece about the broken record that the markets have been following for the past five years. In particular, it has been skipping between two tracks – total chaos (as we experience one crisis after another) and a rhythmic predictability (as investors flee to the safest investment vehicles around, a sharp contrast to the early noughts when risk was everything and traders made millions on the press of a button).

According to the article, an ideal portfolio in 2007 would have been stuffed with gold, white sugar, Swiss francs and German bunds, anyone holding that mixture of assets when the crisis began would have seemed either eccentric or confused. However, over the past five years, a new kind of risk aversion has seen gold hit record values on almost 10% of trading days. So has the Swiss franc, white sugar, and government bonds.

At the same time, many other currencies and commodities have hit record lows as well as highs. Hedging, the standard trick of attempting to offset potential losses/gains that may be incurred by locking in a price too high (or low) for a desired commodity by also taking a position in another commodity that has traditionally followed a mathematically defined relation with the desired commodity, has become almost impossible as one crisis after another derails any and all attempts to find predictable trends.

However, before hedges, we had good old fashioned futures. Initially designed to allow a farmer to sell his crop for a fixed price before it was even planted, a future provided a farmer with an assurance that he would be able to sell his crop without losing the farm if markets went south. This not only benefited the farmer, but also benefited the buying company as they would be assured of a product at the time of harvest. Or, if they didn’t want it, the buying company could sell the contract to someone else.

In today’s volatile market, hedging is not the best idea. If you can’t lock a contract in at a fixed price, which should be your Supply Management organization’s number one goal, you should look to a futures exchange. While it won’t offer either party as much security as a good old fashioned contract, a futures contract may prevent either party from losing their shirt.

Any differing thoughts?

The Category Sourcing Scorecard – An Essential Tool for Collaborative Category Sourcing

Collaborative Category Sourcing is the foundation for eSourcing 3.0, whatever that happens to be. Why? As pointed out on SI, it is the only way to achieve savings above and beyond the limits of spend analysis and/or decision optimization, which max out at an average of 11% and 12% respectively, and this is especially true when the category has been strategically sourced (repeatedly). And the savings can be substantial. As pointed out in SI’s recent white-paper (sponsored by BravoSolution) on the “Top 10 Technologies for Supply Management Savings Today” (registration required), if the right combination of technologies are applied in the right way, they can often deliver 15%, 20%, 30%, and even 40% savings on hundred-million plus categories which were heavily scrutinized in the past and where little or no savings are expected. That’s why collaborative sourcing — which works best when it’s category focussed — is needed.

But how do you select the right category to start with? It’s certainly not as simple as selecting the category with the largest spend, the category with the least recent sourcing exercise, or the category coming up for renewal in six months. There are a number of internal, market, supplier, buyer, and category-specific factors that need to be taken into account — and this recent post on The Category Sourcing Scorecard over on CPO Rising did a great job of summarizing the vast majority of them.

Internally, the right category is the one with a contract maturing at the right time (which is typically three to nine months in the future, depending on the time it will take to do the sourcing project right), a documented sourcing history, a number of concerned stakeholders — who are willing to be engaged, and an accessible spend history (which, although not clear from the summary, should also contain usage, return, and inventory history).

From a market perspective, there should be enough competition to make an event worthwhile, the availability of one or more substitutes (if the current product has one or more patented, single-source, components), some bargaining power for the buyer, and barriers to market entry for both the product the buyer is producing and the capabilities offered by the suppliers (as, otherwise, new suppliers could set up shop overnight, sell to new buyers at cut-rates to establish business, and hurt your entire supply chain). In addition, the supply/demand (im)balance, which factors into the buyer’s bargaining power, should be known and relatively predictable.

From a supplier perspective, it should require some specialization (that the supplier can use to set itself apart), provide for profit margins, contain value-add components (valuable to the supplier and your customers), and a level of technical excellence. In addition, there should be suppliers who are financially stable, innovative, and willing to work with you to find substitute raw materials, components, designs, or production processes that will take costs down and push quality up.

From a buying perspective, there should be the potential to achieve some supply assurance, minimize production impact, save money, and require a production volume that will be attractive to the suppliers. In addition, there should be some signs that costs and risks can be reduced significantly enough to make the project worthwhile. This could take the form of falling raw material prices, the recent introduction of innovative new manufacturing technologies, or increased market competition.

From a category perspective, impact, complexity, and lead time will definitely be key factors, as noted by the post, but so could organizational importance, sustainability, and C-suite support. This will often be the hardest category to judge and score.

Which brings us to the following question – how do you score the scorecard? Do all the categories have equal weight, or are some more important than others? Making them all equal is certainly a valid starting point, as it will let you quickly eliminate categories that are really bad (with low scores in multiple categories), but may not be enough to let you choose between a category which scores great except for market factors, another which scores great except for supplier factors, and a third which scores great except for category factors.

In reality, the right scoring framework will be dependent upon the ultimate goal. If the ultimate goal is (still) to reduce cost, then the market factors should get the most weight. If supply assurance is the most important goal, then the buying factors should get the most weight. And if innovation is the desired outcome, the supplier factors should likely get the most weight. While it’s hard to make a hard and fast rul, here’s a good starting point for weighting.

 

To Focus On: Put a Higher Weight On:
Cost Market Factors
Supply Assurance / Risk Mitigation Buying Factors
Innovation / Value-Add Supplier Factors
Stakeholder Inclusion Internal Factors
Organizational Strategy Category-Specific Factors

 

Where’s the Supply Management Technology Usability Guide?

There are a lot of guides out there as to what a good Supply Management Tool for Sourcing, Procurement, or Logistics is supposed to do, including a number of very detailed posts on SI (and wiki articles on the e-Sourcing Wiki that the doctor wrote, or co-wrote), but are there any guides for usability? (A google search for ‘supply management software usability guide’ comes up empty in the doctor‘s view.)

I couldn’t help but wonder this after reading an article by John A. Gentle that gave the sage advice: provide better instructional tools that offer real value. It clearly pointed out the challenge of “ineffective instructions” that logistics teams create for their suppliers, especially for how vendors are expected to complete forms, input data, and operate software that was provided by your company for warehouse and trucking operations, billing, and reporting. Now, if the provided software was so obvious and easy to use that even a fifth-grader could figure it out, then the issue of “ineffective instructions” is a small one. But the reality is that, even with most platforms that are attempting to adopt consumer-style interfaces, most procurement and logistics software is still reasonably complicated due to the complex nature of what a Procurement or Logistics package capable of supporting global trade needs to do.

Even though the functionality is well understood, the best way to lay out the functionality, and underlying workflow, is not well understood in comparison and, unfortunately, if one company builds an interface that is too close to a competitor’s for some standard functionality, instead of the formation of a standard, in America, we get a frivolous lawsuit (courtesy of the patent pirates). So even though there should be design standards, there usually aren’t.

And the poor supplier, who probably has to manage five such systems which all have completely different workflows and user interfaces, experiences more frustration than John and his Ph.D. wife who had to experience two weeks of trial and error just to reset the time on a poorly designed watch (with even poorer instructions).

I know that the very nature of software, which is always evolving, makes such a guide difficult (and that this particular challenge is compounded by the fact that America still allows software to be patented), but there should be at least some standard workflows and processes that all sourcing, procurement, and logistics software should attempt to follow in a reasonably standard way. It will make things easier for all supply chain partners, minimize unnecessary stresses and bumps, and help us evolve the profession as a whole.