Monthly Archives: July 2013

It Took 40 Years, but BPOs (Bank Payment Obligations) are now Truly SWIFT!

SWIFT, formerly known as the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications, and a global provider of secure financial messaging services, turned 40 on May 3 of this year, and that’s noteworthy on it’s own as this tells us that we’ve only been thinking about electronic financial transactions on a global scale for 40 years, but that’s not the most important piece of news to come out of SWIFT, which processes 90% of traditional global trade transactions, this year.

The most significant piece of news to come out of SWIFT this year, and this decade, is the fact two weeks later on May 17, two months ago, the electronic Bank Payment Obligation (BPO) for an open account transaction became an official financial instrument under the International Chamber of Commerce’s (ICC) Uniform Rules for Bank payment Obligation (URBPO). The URBPO, which is an element in the electronic matching of open account trade data, and which utilizes the ISO 20022 messaging standards, provides an irrevocable payment guarantee in an automated environment and enables banks to offer flexible risk mitigation and financing services across the supply chain to their corporate customers.

As defined by the U.S. Department of Commerce’s International Trade Administration in their Trade Finance Guide, an open account transaction, which is the preferred transaction type by most North American and European multi-nationals, is a sale where the goods are shipped and delivered before payment is due. This option, which is often the most advantageous to the importing buyer, is often the most disadvantageous to the exporting supplier, as they will have difficulty getting financing from their bank to finance the production and shipment of the goods until they are paid by the buyer without proof that they will be paid. That’s why many suppliers will insist on a Letter of Creditworthiness from the buyer’s bank, which will often need to be provided direct to the supplier’s bank. This paperwork takes time, especially since it has to flow through banks, slows down trade, and aggravates buyers who need to move fast to keep up with constantly changing customer demand. That’s why they insist on open accounts, even though the supplier’s bank may not accept them because the buyer, or the buyer’s bank, isn’t known (well enough) to the supplier’s bank, which is fair.

This is a situation that, theoretically, could be easily corrected with an electronic replacement for a letter of credit, that could move at the speed of light down a fiber cable, as the buyer’s bank, which can see the buyer’s ability to pay, can immediately send the supplier’s bank an electronic Bank Payment Obligation that the bank will pay when the goods are shipped and adequate proof has been provided. The supplier’s bank could then advance the supplier as it has a trustworthy bank obligation, and not just a copy of a purchase order (PO), from the buyer’s bank that it can rely on. And now that we have the ICC URBPO, this is finally a reality. And if you’re a multi-national, it’s a reality that’s at your fingertips!

All that is required to create a BPO is a purchase order and an acceptance by the supplier. All that is required to complete the BPO is a commercial invoice and acceptance by the buyer. No other documents are required.

The process is as follows, provided the buyer has an open account with a bank on the SWIFT network that is, or soon will be, URBPO enabled:

  • the buyer sends their PO to their bank and requests a BPO be sent to the supplier’s bank
  • the buyer’s bank delivers the BPO through the TSU (Trade Services Utility) operated by SWIFT to the supplier’s bank
  • the supplier’s bank delivers the PO to the supplier
  • the supplier accepts the PO and sends confirmation to their bank
  • the supplier’s bank delivers the confirmation to the buyer’s bank

and, voila, a valid BPO, which is irrevocable once all conditions are met, has been created. Once the terms of the PO have been completed in full,

  • the supplier informs their bank and provides the commercial invoice
  • the supplier’s bank informs the buyer’s bank that the terms have been completed
  • the buyer’s bank asks for confirmation from the buyer
  • the buyer confirms completion

and the supplier is paid! It’s that easy.

Since only banks have access to the TSU, it’s likely that you’ll probably still have to use e-paper to communicate with your bank if you’re a small or mid-size operation, but if you’re a large multi-national, you can work with an approved vendor (of which there are at least 6 and more in the process of being certified) to integrate your finance system into the bank’s SWIFT system and if you have an open account with the right permissions, automatically create BPOs within your transaction limit (and seamlessly submit requests for approval and conveyance with the click of a mouse), just as easy as you can do ACH payments and wires today with advanced business banking solutions from the major banks.

Of course, it goes without saying that you have to be a client of either the 6 banks that are currently live, the 10 banks that have implemented the capability and that are in the process of implementing their big clients, or the 50 banks that are adding the capability, but if you’re not, and you’re a major player in international trade, maybe you should be! e-Invoicing was e-Procurement 1.0. e-Payment was e-Procurement 2.0. But e-BPO/TSU is e-Procurement 3.0, and if you want to get to the next level, you have to get there.

Trade Extensions: Still No Rest for the Wickedly Powerful

In our last posts on Trade Extensions (No Rest for the Wicked-ly Powerful, Part I and Part II), we talked about how Trade Extensions (TE) added real-time decision optimization auctions, award management (that allowed a user to fix the award for part of a scenario and re-run a smaller model for what-if), built-in OLAP reporting, and supplier feedback mechanisms to their platform to increase the power, usability, and friendliness of their platform. Since then, as per our recent post on Optimization: Is it Time to Move Beyond Sourcing, Trade Extensions has been toiling away to increase the power, flexibility, and usability of their platform to take it beyond sourcing.

Trade Extensions has made significant improvements in the following three areas:

More Powerful Fact Sheets

Back in Trade Extensions Trades Up to a Fact Sheet User Interface, we talked about how Trade Extensions had built the capability for the end user to provide data in d-dimensional fact sheets, which include 2-dimensional spreadsheets and 3-dimensional workbooks, in order to allow the user to define models in a familiar format. Fact sheets could be used to define any model data element in simple row-column data format. In addition, a user could define certain values as simple formulas on other values in the sheet. Since their initial introduction three years ago, Trade Extensions has extended the capability to allow users to define more complex models with more complex formulas that can reference not only values, but formulas, and values and formulas in other fact sheets. Models can get as complex as they need to, and this is the foundation that allows Trade Extensions to define models that go beyond sourcing.

Formula Analyzer

The more complex the models get, the harder it is to pin down why they aren’t quite doing what you think they are supposed to be doing, why they are taking so long to solve, or what is driving the sensitivity. That’s why Trade Extensions built a formula analyzer that allows a user to analyze a formula and see how it is defined, how long it is taking to calculate with respect to the other formulas in the model, and what is affected by the formulas or changes to the formula. In addition, if they exist, it can suggest formula modifications that would allow the model to solve faster. However, just knowing where the problem lies is a great help if a model is solving slow.

Enhanced Browser-Based Reporting and Visualization

OLAP is good, but the ability to do real-time drill-downs, data segregation, reformulation, and graphing in the browser is even better. Noticing that a number of clients were exporting the scenario results and importing the results into a third-party reporting tool with more powerful data analysis and graphing capabilities, Trade Extensions built their own full-fledged rules-based data analysis package (like TS Insight and IQub and a host of others) that allows a user to do the real-time drill-down analysis required to understand complex models in the browser so a user never has to leave the Trade Extensions application. The ability to drill down and reorganize dimensions equals what you will find in the more advanced data analysis applications.

Put these new capabilities together, and a user is truly able to build, analyze, solve, and explore more complex beyond sourcing optimization models than they would have ever thought possible just a few years ago.

Optimization: Is It Time to Move Beyond Sourcing?

A big focus of this blog is, of course, Strategic Sourcing Decision Optimization (SSDO), one of the few advanced sourcing methodologies guaranteed to save your organization, on average, 12% if correctly applied (as demonstrated in two back-to-back studies by Aberdeen) and the doctor‘s speciality. But it’s not the only place you can apply optimization in Supply Management to save money. Another area, as covered a number of times on SI, is Supply Chain Network Optimization (SCNO). And, of course, some companies just focus on the intersection and do Logistics optimization. But this is not everything that can be done, or should be done, especially in an age where many industries now see The End of Competitive Advantage and don’t actually own physical assets, leasing them as need be to create the products and services desired by their prospective customers.

In this situation, what matters is Asset Optimization, where you optimize a one-time dynamic network to minimize sourcing, network, and logistics costs to minimize the total supply chain costs associated with the product you wish to produce. This is easier said than done. In sourcing, you are mainly considering bids, lanes, and associated costs to compute the optimal TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), and if lifetime costs and metrics are available, or TVG (Total Value Generated) with respect to a fixed situation. In network optimization, you are optimizing the location of owned factories, supplier production centers, warehouses, and retailers to optimize the distribution costs. But in asset network optimization, you have to simultaneously consider the network and associated distribution costs, the sourcing requirements and associated production costs, and the costs of using, or not using, the resources you already have available and contracts you have already negotiated. In addition, you have to consider the risks associated with each potential supplier and location, the sensitivity of the overall asset network to each supplier and location (and is there a single point of failure), and the ability to dynamically alter the network should a failure occur or customer demands change.

Plus you have all of the difficulties associated with each type of optimization. With respect to the network, there will be many alternatives for production site, each site will have multiple, and different, asset lines, and each asset will be qualified for a certain operation with respect to a certain product. In addition, some assets will be more efficient and cost effective, and unqualified assets will have a qualification/certification step, which will require limited manpower – a variable that does not need to be modelled in traditional sourcing or SCNO models. It’s a very difficult problem that requires modelling of multiple types of variables and constraints at multiple levels at multiple times. And this last requirement makes the model even more complex. In a traditional sourcing model, you don’t really need to consider “time”, as it doesn’t matter how often the trucks deliver your product, just how many trucks are needed to deliver your product as you are billed FTL or LTL by the delivery. And it doesn’t matter what production schedule the supplier(s) use(s) as long as your products are ready on time, so only the total volume need be considered. But when you are dealing with production models, especially when trying to dynamically construct and optimize an asset network, production schedules are significant. If a certain location only has 30% of capacity left available and can only schedule it during a given timeframe, that has to be taken into account. If some of the products have to be delivered before they can complete the first production run, then there has to be a location that is able to do so. And if a continual supply is needed over nine months, the production cycles should more or less line up with minimal overlap as, otherwise, inventory costs would soar.

It’s a complicated problem, but one that is becoming more and more important in fast moving industries such as fashion and consumer electronics — and one that most SSDO providers can’t address. But I’m happy to report that there are a few optimization vendors in the space who can. One is Algorhythm, in India, that has been doing SCNO for many years, and who has built up a lot of this capability over time while working for it’s global multinational clients such as Unilever. Another, newer entrant, is Trade Extensions, that has been doing SSDO for many years and, at the request of its major multi-national clients, including P&G and Coca-Cola, built up the capability in their solution with innovative new platform enhancements since SI last reviewed their solution in 2011 that make it very easy to define the models, run the scenarios, compare and navigate the results. A few of these enhancements will be described in a future post. Stay tuned!

We haven’t been an industrial society for all that long!

Given the rapid pace of technological progress, and the ever-shortening lifecycle of the goods produced, it’s hard to imagine that, in terms relative to the age of the human race, industrialization is a very new concept. It’s only been 66 years since the introduction of the ENIAC (Electronic Numerical Integrator and Computer) on July 29, 1947, 110 years since the Wright brothers made their first flight, and only 160 years to the day since the first major US world’s fair, the Exhibition of the Industry of All Nations was held in New York City. (This occurred only two years after the Great Exhibition in London.)

Over the course of 4 months, this historic fair saw 1.1 Million visitors, at a time when the US population was only about 26.5 Million (as the last census in 1850 put the US population to be 23,191,876 and the next census in 1860 put the US population at 31,443,321). This fair that featured the New York Crystal Palace (which inspired poets, including Walt Whitman) that was regrettably destroyed by fire in 1858, also included the Latting Observatory that was the tallest structure in New York City at the time at 96m. It is remembered as the place where Elisha Otis demonstrated an elevator equipped with a device called a safety that would kick in if the hoisting rope broke, addressing a major public concern regarding the safety of elevators. Three years later, Otis installed the first passenger elevator in the US in a New York City store and created the reality where if you want profits to go up, help people get up!