Monthly Archives: April 2014

Stagnant Sourcing, Part I


Today’s guest post is from Joe Payne, Vice President of Professional Services at Source One Management Services, LLC and co-author of “Managing Indirect Spend: Enhancing Profitability Through Strategic Sourcing”.

Late last year, I wrote about the “evolution” of procurement — how the department’s practices have moved from simple purchasing, to strategic sourcing, to category management, and to a level of control and strategic involvement that I called “change management”. In the conversations that stemmed from the article, both on- and off-line, I heard from many people out there that organizations don’t need to worry about “change management”, or even “category management”, yet. Many purchasing groups still struggle with implementing any strategic change at all.

This is troubling. If you have read anything related to procurement/supply chain in the last decade, you know that procurement’s ongoing success is tied to strategic improvements. Not only has this been preached, but it has been realized at best in class companies like Apple and Toshiba, where procurement took on a strategic role, optimized supply chain operations to the extreme benefit of the company, and saw executive leadership incorporate procurement leaders more openly. As you are probably aware, both Apple and Toshiba’s current CEOs were formerly CPOs at their respective organizations.

So with a clear path laid out before them — the path of “take a strategic approach, see positive results” — why are so many procurement groups falling behind and failing to do this? The reality is the situation is different for every organization, but over time I have seen a few trends that weigh more heavily than others.

They Think They Are

One of the most common objections lobbied from stakeholders when Source One is brought in to pitch our services is “We are already doing that” or, worse, “We tried that already and it didn’t work”. If brought out early into the pitch, it is clear that the objections are being lobbied by someone protecting their turf, or who sees our being there as an indication of their poor performance. As you drill in on these concerns, you will normally find they are an indication that there is a fundamental confusion regarding what strategic endeavors actually entail.

So, to clarify: A three-bid process is not strategic sourcing. Subscribing to an index on its own is not sufficient market intelligence to make informed decisions. As I have stated previously here on SI, supplier management software is not strategic supplier relationship management.

It is inefficient to continue to dedicate resources to an issue if you believe it is resolved. Procurement groups that mistakenly believe they are engaging strategically are not going to commit resources to actual strategic endeavors, and their failure to act is to their detriment.

Lack of Resources

If a procurement group is cognizant of the tactical nature of their current practices, they still face an obvious hurdle. Despite the numerous ads and pitches from software and service providers, strategic initiatives require significant resources to design, implement, and carry out. These are resources that most procurement groups simply do not have.

We did a survey of procurement professionals a little over a year ago and released the results throughout the spring and summer of last year. The first paper was on resource shortages, and the big number was that 30% of all procurement groups feel they are understaffed. Digging deeper for statistics more relevant to strategic endeavors, 34% of all polled procurement groups have zero resources dedicated to strategic activities, and 52% of all polled groups have less than half of their resources working on strategic endeavors.

While the need for strategic action may be evident, many procurement groups simply do not have the resources available to commit to the development of these long-term strategic initiatives.

“Engineers who can’t add, operators who can’t run their equipment, and accountants who can’t foot numbers become purchasing professionals”
— Jack Welch

Thanks, Joe! I bet our readers can’t wait for Part II tomorrow!

The First Flight Around the World Began 90 Years Ago Today!

It’s hard to believe that it was only 90 years ago today that Seattle, the lead aircraft in the 4-aircraft squadron of the United States Army Air Service, took off from Sand Point, Washington for Alaska in the first leg of what would become the first successful circumnavigation of the world by flight in a journey that took 175 days and covered 44,342 km.

It’s especially hard since we can now fly halfway around the world in a day and a half and are used to getting expedited shipments to fuel our supply chain from halfway around the world in three days (or less). But back in 1924, even though some had tried, including Britain and France, no country had succeeded in flying around the world until the United States Army Air Service, led by Maj. Frederick Martin, managed to circle the globe with the squadron of specially modified DT-2s, with interchangeable wheeled and pontooned landing gear and a fuel capacity of 3,438 litres, made the voyage which involved landings in over 20 countries.

Although SI typically avoids two history lessons in the same week, this was a significant milestone in aviation. With the first air freight shipment having occurred a mere three and a half years before this iconic journey, it allowed some people to dream of a future where air cargo ruled the skies — and make that future happen!

320 Years Ago The Bank of England Was Established …

It’s establishment is very important as it was the first bank to initiate the permanent issue of banknotes (which were initially offered to raise money to fund the war against France) …

And 200 years ago today, the Netherlands Bank issued it’s first banknote, bringing the Netherlands into the modern age of money de-coupled from the coinage they were originally a substitute for, 48 years before the Federal Government of the United States entered the modern monetary age (and 121 years before the Government of Canada did the same).

I’m sure our good friend Gert van der Heijden, author of Spend Matters Netherlands over in Amsterdam is very pleased about this, because it’s yet another reason why Europe, and Scandinavia in particular, are so far ahead of us in e-Commerce, e-Procurement, and even e-Government — as they are 50 years ahead of us in commerce practices.

For those who are interested, Wikipedia has a good history of the bank note. We all take paper money for granted, but it is only recently that it has become common place around the globe.

The Board Gamers Guide to Supply Management Part XIV: Le Havre

You’ve mastered Agricola and feel that you are an agricultural supply master and after sailing Upon a Salty Ocean, you feel you are also a master of logistics and market timing. But can you handle the full meal deal? Especially when you not only have to balance food and resource acquisition with trading and energy needs? Le Havre, an economic construction strategy game, adds a new dimension to put your supply management strategies to the test: having to balance the use of resources for food and the use of resources for energy to power ships, brickworks, iron mills, abattoirs, bakeries, and smokehouses which allow you to acquire and trade resources, convert raw materials into useable building materials, and turn raw fish and grain into food.

You win Le Havre by acquiring the most wealth over the course of the game, and you acquire wealth by collecting, selling, and using goods and by buying and constructing ships and buildings which have a monetary value. This sounds easy enough, but it is a significant supply management challenge as you have to continuously make enough money to cover the entry costs to the buildings you need (but don’t own), acquire enough raw materials that can be used to produce energy to power the buildings that produce food and building materials, and produce enough food to feed your constantly growing workforce at the end of every round (just like your payroll for an increasingly growing workforces increases in real life), which requires more and more food as the game goes on (just as your corporate workforce also grows as your company grows and you acquire more property and trade more resources).

Although you want to focus on acquiring buildings and building ships, as this is generally what helps you accumulate the most wealth (especially if you leave out the special buildings), you’re constantly having to interrupt your strategy to acquire food to feed your workers, raw materials for future buildings, and energy sources. The last thing you want to do is run out of food, because then you have to buy food, and if you don’t have enough money you either have to fire sale a building (if you have one) at half of its value or borrow, and every loan accrues interest every round (and there’s no limit on debt or interest, just like there’s no limit in the real world).

The game consists of a fixed number of rounds (defined as 14 rounds for 2 players, 18 rounds for 3 players, and 20 rounds for 4 or 5 players), each of which consists of 7 turns. On each turn, you take one of two actions:

  1. take an offer from the harbour or
    on each player’s turn, new goods arrive in the harbour and are added to the appropriate offer space, which the player can take
  2. use one of the available buildings
    which can include the construction firm that allows you to build up to buildings of your own

The base goods that are available as offers for the player to take are:

  • fish
    a food source worth 1 food or 2 food if smoked in the smokehouse
  • wood
    used to construct buildings, ships, or supply 1 energy (via fire); it can supply 3 energy if converted to charcoal in the charcoal kiln
  • clay
    used to construct buildings, it can be upgraded to brick in the brickworks to build more buildings
  • iron
    used to construct buildings or iron ships, it can be upgraded to steel
  • grain
    a harvest good that can be baked into bread (worth two food) at the bakehouse, or used to grow 1 more grain (at the end of the round)
  • cattle
    a harvest good that can be upgraded to meat (worth three food) at the abattoir and hides (for every 2 cattle slaughtered); also, 2+ cattle produce one more cattle at the end of every round

All other goods have to be produced. These include:

  • charcoal: an energy source worth 3 energy produced from wood in the charcoal kiln
  • coke: an energy source worth 10 energy produced from charcoal in the colliery
  • brick: produced from clay in the brickworks
  • steel: produced from iron in the steel mill
  • bread: produced from grain in the bakehouse
  • smoked fish: produced from fish in the smokehouse
  • meat: produced from cattle in the abattoir
  • leather: produced from hides in the tannery

There are 33 standard buildings (and 36 special buildings, which you should ignore until you’ve built up some experience with the base games). In addition to the 9 resource conversion buildings already mentioned, specifically:

  • Abattoir
  • Bakehouse
  • Brickworks
  • Charcoal Kiln
  • Cokery
  • IronWorks
  • Smokehouse
  • Steel Mill
  • Tannery

The following 8 buildings are also available, and necessary:

  • Building Firms: necessary to build buildings
  • Clay Mound: a source of clay
  • Colliery a source of coal
  • Construction Firms: necessary to build buildings
  • Fishery: a source of fish, which is a vital food source
  • Shipping Line: necessary to trade
  • Wharf: necessary to build ships

In order to use a building, you have to pay the entry fee (if you don’t own it), have the energy sources to power it, and one or more of the base goods required to use its ability. In order to build a building, you have to have the resource cost, just like in Agricola. Not to mention, it has to be available. This is the challenge of Le Havre, not only do you have to balance food production (to feed your workers) with resource acquisition (to build), energy production (to power buildings) and ship production (to acquire fish and trade), but you also have to build at the right time, use the buildings at the right time, and trade appropriately. Especially since, just like in the real world, only one player can use one building at a time, take an offer from the harbour and the resource type associated with it, or get points for a particular building or action. And the increasing food costs make the game quite challenging if you don’t adequately prepare for food production from round one. In a four player game, you will need to produce 113 units of food and in a two player game, you will need to produce 177 units of food! A growing workforce needs to be fed (paid)! And you just can’t borrow willy nilly, as the bank only lends money to cover the cost of food (as in Agricola, you can only beg for food).

If you really want to test your supply management mettle, Le Havre is a good game to test it on. While it will likely take twice as long as Agricola to get through a session, it puts your thinking skills and ability to balance supply (offered resources) with demand (building [utilization] costs) in a way that maximizes overall value generated (as the winner is the one that acquires the most wealth by the end of the game). So give Le Havre a go. You might just get more than you negotiated for. (And get one step closer to the ultimate supply management challenge.)

P.S. If you want a good guided introduction to the game, try the iOS version and see if you can become Le Havre’s next titan of industry. The tutorial is good as is the gameplay. (But it won’t give you the challenge of going head to head with your team-mate — all AI’s have preferred strategies and predictable responses when you play them enough.)

Mid-Market Manufacturers and Distributors Need an ERP That Works!

If you’re a mid-market manufacturer or distributor, times are tough.

Your big customers are adopting e-Procurement, Supplier Networks, and e-Invoicing and want to implement end-to-end Procurement and Invoice Automation to streamline processes and reduce operational costs.

Your component and raw material suppliers aren’t always on time, and if you are not on top of your inbound supply chain, a single missed delivery can put you weeks behind and cause you to lose critical orders with big customers.

And if demand suddenly surges or shipments get delayed, sales people and account managers need to know what can and can’t be promised or the company will look bad if multiple account managers collectively make delivery commitments beyond what the organization can deliver.

How do you meet these needs?

If you’re a mid-size organization, you probably can’t afford a full SAP, Oracle, or other Enterprise-class ERP solution with all of the bells and whistles because they come with a seven figure price tag, which leaves you with few choices. Either you choose a lesser ERP, with a price-tag in your price-range, or you go open source, and pay someone to configure and link it to your systems (as most open source never works “out-of-the-box”).

However, all you get with a basic ERP is basic enterprise resource planning functionality. There is no support for e-Invoicing and order automation, no support for advanced real-time forecasting and material planning, and no supply chain visibility.

As a result, in order to service your big customers, you have to either join a Supplier Network, and probably pay a fee for every invoice you send, or use the buyer’s e-Invoicing portal, and have your Accounts Receivable clerk create every invoice twice. After all, while there are lots of e-Procurement and Invoice Automation solutions for buyers, there’s few for distributors and manufacturers because e-order fulfillment systems just aren’t sexy.

In order to keep on top of your supply chain, you have to buy a separate inventory management system on top of a subscription to a real-time supply visibility system to get a grip on what you have, what’s coming in, and where your supply gaps are.

Then, because material planning is not real time and not integrated with order management, you need to buy a separate forecasting system. That’s even more dollars on top of the dollars that you need to spend for inventory management, order management, and the Supplier Network. If the organization could afford all that, the organization could afford the 7-figure ERP system that it couldn’t afford in the first-place.

That’s why mid-sized manufacturers and distributors need an ERP option that works. It has to be affordable, serve as the counterpart to buyer e-Procurement and invoice automation solutions, allow for visibility-based inventory management, provide full order management functionality, and allow for dynamically updated forecasts based upon changes in material availability, delivery dates, and buyer order forecasts.

It’s not sexy, but in order to have an efficient supply chain, all players in the supply chain have to be efficient. If solutions are produced for some players, but not others, the supply chain will continue to only be as strong as the weakest link.