Monthly Archives: July 2012

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.

e-Procurement on an ERP – Harder than Fetching Groceries in a Battle Tank

Procurement Insight has been tearing up a storm recently. First, they make it clear that “e” does not change the fundamental nature of anything, then they rip the covers off of Supply Chain Leakage, and now, for the triple play, they tell us that you don’t take your tank to the mall, Mrs. Worthington.

In the article, the author, Ian Burdon, described a particularly dispiriting conference where he went to a session on “Re-engineering Government Procurement” where “experts” claimed that the thing to do was to sort out procurement processes then hand it all over to SAP and Oracle. Really? In this situation, I would not have thought about throwing myself out of a high window but, instead, of throwing the experts out of the high window, because anyone who would say such a thing can’t be much of a Procurement expert.

As Ian said, the reason things were often going so badly in government (procurement) despite their having invested in ERPs was precisely because they were using ERPs. ERP stands for Enterprise Resource Planning, not Enterprise Resource Procurement. Failing to even ask what the “P” stood for was the government agency’s first mistake. The next mistake was failing to understand that a “planning” system that told you there would be a need for 5,000 toner cartridges, 10,000 reams of paper, and 500 litres of industrial solvent does not have to tell you how you would go about procuring these items in order to accomplish resource planning. Nor does it have to give you RFX, Auction, or analytics capabilities of any kind as it is not sourcing, nor purchase order management, invoice management, and payment management functionality, as it is not procurement. Trying to use ERP for e-Procurement is like trying to fit a dodecagonal peg in a hexagonal hole. (Good luck with that.)

Just because someone claims to be the Procurement oracle, doesn’t mean that they are. They just might be trying to make a sap out of you. Get an unaffiliated third party to figure out what you need, and get it. Not what a big corporation, or a misguided expert, tells you.

What’s Worse Than a Walmart Consultant? A Sleazy Consultant!

After my recent post on how Walmart Changed the World … But Not Necessarily for the Better, I reminded my Twitterers* about what happens when you use Walmart Consultants. In a nutshell, when you pay a cut rate, you get a cut job … and the pleasure of the consultant blaming you for his or her incompetence.

However, this is still better than what you get when you use a sleazy consultant (who, in another life, was probably a lemon, err, used car salesperson). As per this great post over on the Enterprise Irregulars on Screwing the Customer (Tales from the Crazy Consultant File), we can still be surprised by the antics of some consultants. The post chronicled two stories.

In the first story, a small, profitable business that was a multi-million dollar money machine, bought on-premise ERP software from a reseller that poorly fit their needs. Since the reseller did not specialize in implementation, the firm wanted the vendor to find them another implementation services company. But since the vendor had no relationship with the buyer, the buyer was dependent on the reseller to find, and manage, the implementation of software that poorly fit their needs. The buyer has outsourced control, leverage, and judgment to an unworthy consulting firm. Translation — the customer is screwed.

In the second story, a small consulting organization has a multi-million dollar change management contract with a large state agency. Part-way through the project, the consulting company unilaterally shifted its focus to advising on tools and methodologies. The state agency threatened termination, and the consultancy responded with a large invoice and threats of legal action. Meanwhile, the agency hiring manager has limited options since any change would involve delays and additional expense. Translation — this customer is also screwed.

Unfortunately, the sleaze is not limited to these two examples. The Supply Management space also has its share of sleazy consultants, which are our equivalent of the the used car (lemon) salespersons, and many of them fall into the following two categories:

Slippery Spend Analyst

Yes, it’s true, that the doctor promotes a good spend analysis almost as often as he promotes a good optimization-based sourcing project, but there are two types of spend analysts in the world. Those that educate you, and those that just tell you where your spend is too high and offer to negotiate it down for you. In the short term, this works great — the consultant identifies a category, like telecom, where you are 15% over market average and the consultant negotiates your rates down to 5% below market average and you save 20%. But in the long term, as users are added to and removed from the plans, and usage changes, rates creep back up and in three years your organization is again paying 15%-plus over market average. And, again, you have to pay the consultancy to do the spend analysis to reduce your rates. Now, if they had trained you on their process and one or more tools, you’d have the option to do it yourself, or to just use them for the negotiation. But since they didn’t, you’re left in the dark.

Recovery Specialist

This is a wonderful racket. Almost every big organization overpays its suppliers due to duplicate payments on the same invoice (by accident, when it is resubmitted due to a late payment), duplicate payments against the same products (as the organization will resend the invoice with each shipment corresponding to the same PO), overpayments (because negotiated payments were misapplied), and failed deductions (because parts were bad and payment was not refunded). But not every organization catches all of these overpayments, which can add up to Millions for Global 3000s. There are consultancies out there that specialize in this recovery, and this is a good thing as long as they don’t take advantage of you.

The problem is that most of the consultancies that specialize in recovery use “black-box” methods to identify these overpayments, which are guarded more securely than Fort Knox. So even though they might find an organization a Million in savings, and take Two Hundred Thousand as a Fee, the organization isn’t that much better off than if it hadn’t hired the consultancy because. In as little as eighteen months, there will be another Million in overpayments hidden in the books because the consultancy didn’t tell the organization how the majority of overpayments originated or what best practices the organization could adopt to minimize the amount of overpayments it made. This could allow the organization to go longer between significant recovery audits, and the organization would likely pay less, and lose less, over time. A good recovery firm will do this, and a really good recovery firm will even advise you on the software options that exist to plug some of the holes in your payment processes and/or tolls that will automate part of the recovery process.


* Yes, the doctor is on Twitter, riding the Fail Whale as he chases the Twitter Bird (because the doctor wants his marbles back)!

The (Board) Gamer’s Guide to Supply Management Part III: Munchkin

I’m ecstatic to continue this one-of-a-kind summer series that will help you whether you are just interested in finding out about this new and exciting career opportunity, or ready to take your Supply Management career to the next level. As I said in my last post, learning Supply Management can be infinitely more fun than watching paint dry. And when you can grasp a lot of the basic concepts by playing the right mix of strategic (and sometimes tactical) board games with your friends, it’s a blast and a half!

While this might be a good time to move on to a game like Puerto Rico, an economic city building game where you select a trade (such as captain, mayor, trader, settler, craftsman, or builder) in an effort to achieve the greatest prosperity (and highest respect) by shipping goods, building impressive cities, and managing their colonists and plantations, it’s still a little advanced for our budding gamers, so we are going to select a different game for our third post. Plus, while Ticket to Ride (Part I) helped us understand the capacity limitations of the shipping industry and The Settlers of Catan (Part II) helped us to understand the balance between supply and demand in limited commodities, they both limited our view to a competitive market where each player was acting independently at all times. (And while trading is a big part of Catan, your opponent only traded when it was in his interest to do so, and partnerships were never formed.)

In Steve Jackson’s Munchkin, we still have the situation where every player is out for herself, but where players will often unite for brief periods of time to accomplish a goal where there are mutual rewards (or bribes) to be made. Plus, as we will quickly discover, Munchkin brings a reality to gaming that neither Ticket to Ride nor Catan bring to the table. And most importantly, we have another fantastic TableTop episode where Wil Wheaton (who still claims to be In Exile) introduces the game with the help of the game’s creator, Steve Jackson (and Felicia Day and Sandeep Parikh). As long as he keeps churning them out, we are going to take advantage of the priceless gifts that Mr. Wheaton has granted us.

When it comes to Munchkin, as Wil Wheaton says,

The goal is very simple. Get from level one all the way up to level ten. To do that we’re going to kick in doors. Bam! And fight the monsters that we find behind them. Now, if a monster is too tough for us, we can ask our friends for help. Maybe they’ll make it less scary. . . . Of course if a monster looks like it’s getting to be too easy for us to defeat, those same ‘friends” will turn around and make that monster harder for us to defeat. . . . If we are able to defeat the monster and don’t have to run away, we’re going to go up a level and we get to take one of its treasures, always something that helps us. . . . Munchkin is a game where you really find out who your friends are. Generally, not the people sitting around the table with you.

In addition, Munchkin is a turn-based game where, at the start of your turn, you may play as many cards from your hand as you’d like, trade items in play with other players, or sell items for levels. Then you have to kick in the door, where you will generally find a monster (which must be fought immediately), a curse (which applies to you immediately), or another card that may be put in your hand and saved for later or played immediately. Other cards are generally monster modifiers (that make them weaker or stronger), a race (such as dwarf, elf, orc, etc. that gives you a special ability), a class (such as warrior, wizard, bard, etc. that gives you a special skill), or another special card that can be played at a later time. If you fight a monster, you either beat it (with help), or you try to run away. If you beat it, you get its treasurer. If you don’t, you suffer bad stuff, such as losing a level, losing an item, or, in some cases, you die. If it’s not a monster, you get to look for trouble (and play a monster from your hand to fight, if you have one), or loot the room (where you take a second door card and put it in your hand).

It’s representative of our job many days because we never know what interruption (probably caused by a gremlin) we are going to have to deal with, and we never know if we’re going to be able to conquer it without help. Sometimes we can solve the problem with help from within our organization, but sometimes we will need help from our competition. And this is where Munchkin gets interesting when compared to Ticket to Ride or The Settlers of Catan. Maybe when our primary distributor ‘loses’ the shipment of tantalum we need to keep our mobile phone capacitor production line operational, we can call up our competitor a few miles away and find out that they will sell us some of their excess inventory (at a mark-up) that will keep our production line going until we can get a replacement shipment. But maybe they will instead take advantage of this moment of weakness to lock up even more supply from their distributor, in the hopes that our production line will stay down for weeks and give them a chance to leapfrog us on New Product Introduction into the rapidly evolving mobile market place. We don’t know. Munchkin is one of the few games that will help us understand the intricacies of a co-opetitive market (which may not be a good thing for your supply chain, as per this post).

The trading aspect introduces us to the ways that we can barter inventory when cash is at a premium, the selling aspect (treasure for levels) introduces us to the ways we can profit off of excess inventory if we are smart about it, and the cursing aspect introduces us to the dirty tricks we might have to deal with from shady suppliers. Plus, classes demonstrate how skills acquired through education can improve your capabilities and races demonstrate how specializations in certain functions, processes, or technologies can take you up the Procurement ladder. And, just like in real life, if you don’t have enough excitement in your job, you can always look for trouble and hedge your bets (by buying on the spot market or, even worse, hedging) or, if you see a supplier or competitor in trouble, you can, in effect, loot the room.

It’s a great game. And since, as Wil says,

Sometimes you don’t care about someone’s rich personal backstory. You don’t care about a character’s precious little hopes and dreams. Sometimes you just want to kick in the door, kill the monster, and take it’s treasure without any of that pesky role playing.

So, without further ado, it’s time to kick in the door, mutilate the bodies, and backstab each other as we fight to see which one of us in the biggest munchkin.