Monthly Archives: November 2013

IQNavigator Navigates You Through Statement of Work Creation

Since we last covered IQNavigator and their IQ-based Navigation of Contingent Labour Sourcing in 2008, IQNavigator has been hard at work extending their platform and its capabilities to go beyond temporary and contingent labour and also handle project and SOW (Statement-of-Work) sourcing events and the full SOW life-cycle.

Project and SOW sourcing projects, even if they consist primarily of contingent labour, are different from standard contingent labour sourcing events in that a third party is managing the project, payments are (typically) on a different schedule and have to be tracked against a budget, and named resources need to be tracked. The entire process, from RFX, through contract generation and award, to project management and delivery is different.

The customizations in the IQNavigator platform start with the initial RFX creation, which begins with a wizard-based decision-tree workflow. This Decision Manager is customizable by the organization for each type of SOW project that it undertakes, that, based on a series of questions, will configure the proper RFX for the project in question. This series of questions (that can be customized by each client organization), which could be as simple as asking the user to identify the location where the services are required, the category of the work (IT, engineering, advertising, etc.), the length of the project, the expected budget (range) required, and the approvals required, will, once completed, initiate an RFX workflow that will incorporate the necessary elements of the SOW project. The Decision Manager solution was designed to focus on two things:

  1. Delivering the end user to the correct channel (or category) based on Procurement’s operational and/or vendor preferences and
  2. Placing the end user at the optimal point of the defined category workflow based on the end user’s responses

Depending on the answers given, the RFX will include sections for the definition of milestones, budgets, rate tables, (open) supplier selection, support for named resources, questionnaires, and / or required submissions (such as insurance certificates) from the supplier to be considered for the project. The user will then be walked through the definition of the RFX for the SOW project step-by-step (by way of a pre-configured RFX or SOW template).

Milestones are up to the individual who creates the project, can be tied to a budget line item, and associated with one or more deliverables. Budgets can be as simple as an overall budget for the project, or as detailed as a budget category for each deliverable associated with each milestone (if the project is being paid for on a deliverable basis) or by (named) resource if the project is being conducted on a time-and-materials basis.

Suppliers can quickly be selected from a drop-down search box if the organization has (pre)approved suppliers for the SOW project in question, and if the suppliers have provided rate tables, these rate tables can be automatically pulled in and presented back to the supplier (to verify) during their bid. In addition, if the supplier has previously specified named resources, these named resources can be pre-populated as well. Depending on the project, they buyer may also have the option to add additional suppliers (which will be invited to bid on the project as well).

Questionnaires can also be selected from a set of standard pre-existing questionnaires associated with the type of project being sourced. They can be distributed as-is or modified as required. In addition, the user can create their own questionnaire if one doesn’t exist that fits the bill.

When the RFX is complete to the user’s satisfaction, it is sent to the supplier who logs in and completes a bid to their satisfaction. If the supplier has already defined their rate tables and named resources and uploaded their insurance certificates, bidding on the project by the supplier could be as simple as identifying the resources who will complete the work, providing work estimates and proposed fees, and accepting the (automatically calculated) budget.

When all of the supplier responses have been obtained, the buyer, who can choose to analyze each response individually, can also evaluate the responses side by side in a comparison report that includes the (budget) elements of interest and then select one of the responses as the basis of a project award. At this point, the application can generate a draft contract based upon a template that pulls in all of the collected information, and includes any necessary documents in appendices. And if the supplier has signed a MSA (Master Services Agreement) with the buyer that authorizes password-based named-login approvals in the IQNavigator SOW platform as e-Signatures, the contract can be accepted online and work can begin immediately.

The entire SOW application is streamlined to make the sourcing and approval of SOW projects as easy as possible for the project manager, while incorporating as many best practices as possible, which allows the project manager to focus her time on what she does best — managing projects and not running sourcing events.

Then, once the SOW project has been awarded, the project manager can use the rest of the IQNavigator platform to track project progress against milestones, collect time sheets, approve time sheets and expenditures, make payments against project budget categories, and track overall supplier performance. The reporting engine can be used to run reports at any time and the dashboard can be used to monitor current action items and outstanding project milestones and deliverables.

The inclusion of SOW capability makes IQNavigator an end-to-end platform for managing all types of contingent labour required by your organization, whether such labour is managed in house or by a third party. The IQNaviagor approach to SOW is unique, and it is the most thorough solution for generic SOW sourcing events in a contingent labour solution that SI has seen to date.
The IQNavigator platform is a great way to get all of your labour-based spend under management in one platform.

So How Do You Align Your Supply Management Organization and Advance its Maturity?

In our last post we indicated that the expected value of Supply Management maturity was a 50% improvement in ROIC and a 75% improvement in Operating Margin, but that effort was needed for an organization to reach that maturity level. However, any effort involved would pay off handsomely as this is only an average – for example, in Enterprise Procurement – Back on Track, a presentation on Aurizon’s Procurement Transformation presented last month, Roger McNeill documented a ROIC increased from 2.0% in 2010 to 8.0% in 2013, a 300% improvement!

We also indicated that if the effort was put into the right process, specifically the EPAM (Evaluate. Plan. Act. Measure.) process, the organization could move up the maturity curve and see this success, as well as make the necessary alignments with the business in the process. So how does it do this?

1. Evaluate

Start by measuring the organizational maturity on the axes of proactivity and organizational alignment. Specifically, is the organization:

  • Reactive and/or Internally Focused
    a Supply Management organization that is reactive and/or internally focussed is typically near the bottom of the maturity curve, still approaching sourcing from an auction or best-bid perspective, running on an ERP, and quoting savings numbers without validation
  • Proactive and Metric Focussed
    a Supply Management organization that is proactive and metric focussed is typically in the middle of the maturity curve, approach sourcing as a total cost optimization project, implementing P2P, adopting best practices, and measuring realized savings; they’re doing good, but could be doing better
  • Strategic and Organizational Strategy Focussed
    a Supply Management organization that is strategic and focussed on organizational strategy is at the leading edge of the maturity curve, approaching sourcing as a value generation exercise, running on a suite of best of breed source-to-pay solutions, approaching sourcing exercises as strategic joint ventures with other organizations, creating best practices, and measuring outcomes against shareholder value and time to that value

Plan.

Where the organization is on the curve dictates what the organization has to do next.
An organization that is:

  • Reactive and/or Internally Focused
    needs to plan sourcing events with ample time to do the detailed spend and market analysis required to approach the category strategically, move to bid evaluation on total cost (of ownership) and not just landed cost models, implement a P2P or e-Procurement system to capture organizational spend and increase Spend Under Management (SUM), implement an appropriate e-Sourcing solution, institue best e-Sourcing practices, and start measuring realized savings using the P2P system
  • Proactive and Metric Focussed
    needs to plan sourcing events in conjunction with stakeholders and identify the outcomes that are most important to the stakeholders and give those outcomes the greatest weight in a total value model, run on an integrated end-to-end Source-to-Pay suite (which could include sub-suites from different leading BoB [Best-of-Breed] vendors), institutionalize and embed best practices in the sourcing technologies and processes, and measure outcomes using the metrics of interest to finance and the C-Suite (like ROIC, Operating Margin, increased market share, etc.)
  • Strategic and Organizational Strategy Focussed
    needs to embed itself in NPD and NPI (new product design and new product introduction) to take cost out before cost is baked in by Engineering (or Marketing when it insists on features that most of the target market doesn’t want, which Supply Management can identify by sourcing an appropriate market research study), work with Marketing to help it understand the risks and difficulties in new market entry based on its global market knowledge gained from sourcing from different regions, work with Operations to redesign the corporate footprint to reduce cost and increase sustainability, work with Finance to help it better manage Working Capital based on better demand management and improved cash-flow forecasting, and help the C-Suite define the corporate strategy

Act.

Once the plan is in place, the organization needs to execute the plan. The execution will vary based on the plan.

Measure.

The plan, if properly defined, will include metrics and outcomes that can be measured quantitatively and evaluated qualitatively. When the plan has been executed, the results should be measured, compared against any baselines or expected outcomes, and reported.

The devil is in the details, but the process is sound. And there are a number of leading Supply Management software and solution companies that can help your organization through this process, including BravoSolution, if the organization is looking for software and services, and Deloitte, if the organization already has a sourcing software suite (from a provider that doesn’t provide transformation services). And even it it takes 4-5 years, which is the average for Global 3000 organizations, the end result will be worth it as most save hundreds of millions of dollars and see an increase in key financial metrics of 50% or more.

The Measurable Value of Supply Management Maturity

Simply put:

  1. a ROIC (Return On Invested Capital) of 12.8% vs 8.5% for laggards
  2. an Operating Margin of 14.6% vs 8.4% for laggards

according to BravoSolution (Source), who, as a Best-of-Breed global e-Sourcing software and services provider that has been delivering software and services to global clients for over a decade, has been measuring the maturity of client organizations from the time they start their e-Sourcing journey (with BravoSolution) to the time that they master the e-Sourcing process that BravoSolution supports and the platforms they provide.

This 50% performance improvement in ROIC and 75% performance improvement in Operating Margin should not be too surprising given that all of the analysts firms have been telling us for years that leading Supply Management organizations far outpace laggard Supply Management organizations when it comes to financial success. What should be surprising is that the vast majority of companies still have trouble advancing Supply Management out of the laggard category even though many of the secrets of success have been known for many years.

Especially since the the first step is to align the Supply Management organization with the business (goals). This shouldn’t be hard, but for many companies it is. Why?

Let’s start by considering the reasons for misalignment

  • 5% is due to different drivers
  • 30% is due to (different) data
  • 65% is due to differing definitions

The big problem is still communication. In most organizations, Procurement doesn’t speak the same language as the rest of the business, and Finance in particular. Remember, HR still thinks sourcing refers to the recruiting function, Engineering thinks procurement is calling up the preferred supplier and asking them to ship the required parts for the prototype, and Finance defines savings as the difference between last year’s spend and this year’s spend, not how much savings have been identified or how much cost has been avoided. In order for Supply Management to mature as an organization, it not only has to align with the business goals, but it has to speak the business language.

So how can Supply Management achieve alignment and, at the same time, advance as a function and achieve the financial success that will make it the favourite child of the organization?

The EPAM Loop.
Evaluate. Plan. Act. Measure.

In the 1950’s W. Edwards Denning proposed that business processes should be analyzed and measured to identify sources of variations that cause products to deviate from customer requirements. Specifically, he recommended that business processes be placed in the context of a continuous PDCA (Plan. Do. Check. Act.) feedback loop so that managers can identify and change parts of the process that need improvement. And it was a leap forward in business philosophy at the time (and could even be considered the foundation for the DMAIC (Define. Measure. Analyze. Improve. Control) cycle that is the foundation for Six Sigma. Given that sourcing processes are only improved if they are continuously monitored, it’s obvious that a similar process is needed.

So why can’t we just use the classic PDCA cycle? Simply put, we have no way of knowing whether or not a plan is likely to be beneficial, or even executable by the organization, without an understanding of what the current level of organizational maturity is. That’s why the first thing that needs to be done is an evaluation of where the organization is against a maturity framework, built on the study of Supply Management transformations over the last two decades. When an evaluation is done against a well-defined framework, that is associated with best practices that have been successfully used by leading organizations to advance up the maturity curve, the organization can come up with a plan appropriate to its current level of capability. This not only maximizes the organization’s chance of project success but helps it accelerate up the curve faster than organizations that take their best guess, which amounts to nothing more than trial and error.

Once an organization has a proper transition plan in place, it’s talent should be able to quickly execute on that plan and see some success in the short term. Then, when the project has finished, or in the case of a multi-year project, reached key milestones, the team can measure the results versus the expected results (based on case studies and surveys of organizations who undertook similar projects at a similar maturity level), and determine if they are on-track, ahead, or behind. If the team is behind where they can expect to be, they return to the Evaluation stage, determine the reason for the shortfall, modify the process, and try again. When the team has reached the desired level of success, and advanced up the maturity framework, it begins the EPAM cycle again and comes up with process and technology transitions designed to get it to the next level of maturity.

BravoSolution, which has been working on improving their assessment and change management process for years, has found that the process works so well that they have cemented their global sourcing service offerings on the process, which they are calling BravoAlign. Regardless of what it’s called, the method works, and can work for your organization too.

Duty Drawback – The Devil is in the Details

Duty Drawback, granted under section 313(a) of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended in 19 U.S.C. Section 1313(a), costs North American business up to 2.4 Billion a year [Source: Neville Peterson LLP] because the process is so convoluted that most business would rather lose the money owed to them then try to navigate through a process which seemingly requires truckloads of paperwork and which can take 6 months or more to resolve. Why is it so difficult? The US has had 224 years to make it so (as it was the second law passed by the first Congress way back in 1789).

Even though the goal of duty drawback is to promote U.S. business development by allowing a company to secure refunds for products that were exported, the government considers this drawback a privilege, and one that has to be earned (through a rigorous filing process).
Duty drawback is further complicated by the fact that claims are not just limited to importers, manufacturers who purchase imported products for use in their manufactured goods that are to be exported and exporters who purchase products made from imported merchandise are also eligible to make drawback claims, because drawback is paid to the exporter (under the assumption that the importer they bought the goods from charged the buyer enough to make a profit, and thus recovered the duty in this way), who has to have proof that the product is eligible for duty drawback. For a product to be eligible, it has to be an imported product on which duty was paid and which was subsequently substantially transformed and then either exported within five years of import, rejected upon import, or unused and exported or destroyed within three years of import.

What is a substantial transformation? It is one that is complicated, requires money and labour, and results in a new and different product, which has a new name, character and usage. Detailed documentation of the process may be required in filing the claim.

To file a claim on the product that was substantially transformed, the filer needs to prove that the resultant product contains an imported product on which duty was paid. This requires an exact paper trail that documents the product, either by batch, lot, or serial number that was consumed and the product that was produced. If the merchandise that was imported is then exported or destroyed within three years in an unused state, the organization is also eligible for drawback. In this situation, the organization will need to keep a paper trail that proves the unused merchandise that was exported or destroyed was the same merchandise that was subject to an import duty. Finally, an organization also has the option of rejecting import merchandise that does not conform to specifications, that was shipped without its consent, or that was determined to be defective, and file a drawback claim on this merchandise, but to do so the merchandise must be returned to customs. Unless the merchandise has no resale value, this is generally not a good option.

Unless the claim is for goods imported from Canada or Mexico under NAFTA, which has its own drawback filing process, the steps involve:

  • applying for a ruling
    this provides an organization with permission to submit a claim, and will generally require that the organization provide a detailed description of the process that demonstrates it substantially transforms the product on which the organization is intending to file a drawback
  • file the claim
    including all of the paperwork required, which, at a minimum will require the following for proof of import

    • Customs Form 7501
    • Commercial Invoice
    • Documentation necessary to support use of products in a substantial transformation manufacturing process
    • Waste summary documentation for any products discarded
    • Certificate of Delivery
  • and, at a minimum, the following for proof of export

    • export declaration
    • invoice
    • bill of lading
    • purchase orders and receipts from the customer

And it will take time. As the CBP site says be aware the process of filing for drawback can be involved and the time it takes to receive refunds can be lengthy. But if you do a lot of exporting, the cashflow could make even a six month wait worth it.