Monthly Archives: September 2015

Economic Damnation #6: Mega Global Corps & the continued M&A Frenzy

While the general consensus from a sourcing perspective is bigger is better as it allows for volume discounts from economies of scale, this is not always the case, as recently pointed out in our post on Economies of Anti-Scale. Sometimes it is not only the case that bigger is not better, but also that bigger takes a bigger bite out of the limited butt that you have to work with.

Let’s start by going back to two of the big examples of anti-scale in our post from a couple of weeks back: Energy and Short-Term Contingent Labour.

With respect to energy, as per our post, most energy platens still rely on coal, oil, and natural gas, and, as a result, energy costs are dependent on the somewhat unpredictable prices for these limited natural resources. And since the energy companies can always extract the maximum prices for their energy produced from these limited resources from consumers and small businesses with no negotiation power, they are not overly interested in negotiating with you unless they are not close to their maximum production potential and you will guarantee enough annual usage that it’s worth their time to even talk to you. And even then, unless you have a couple of other energy companies that are also willing to talk, they aren’t going to give you great deals. In any given area, there aren’t that many energy companies, so if a merger or acquisition happens and your options drop to 2, or 1, you are, as they say, up the creek without a paddle and your prices will go from bad to worse.

The situation is similar in contingent labour. If the resources you need are scarce, in demand, and their are only a few providers, the last thing you want is a merger or acquisition. This gives the provider all the power, and your cost is as much as any competitor is willing to pay. Don’t even bother to negotiate. Just sign the offer, thank them endlessly for even thinking of you, kiss the ring, and go on your way. The best you’re going to get is a bit of spit on the pitchfork.

If economies of anti-scale were the only thing one had to worry about when Mega-Corps entered the picture, all would be manageable, but Mega-Corps take you out of the frying pan and dump you in the lava pit when negotiation time comes and categories that were once in your favour all of a sudden shift very fast to their favour.

Buyer power depends on a number of things, but always depends on two critical market conditions being in the buyer’s favour:

  1. Supply exceeding demand.
  2. Multiple vendors competing for the business.

When a Mega-Corp swoops in and buys up one or more suppliers in a category which only had a few suppliers to start with, or multiple supplies merge into a Mega-Corp, the number of vendors competing for your business decreases, and with the smaller guys only being able to support a smaller customer base, more and more companies are forced to go the big guys, like it or not, and these big guys can essentially dictate the prices across the critical goods and services you need for your supply chain. Previously low cost electronics, CPG, MRO, and services categories in some regions can jump double digit percentages overnight and there’s nothing you can do.

But this isn’t the worth. Let’s say two suppliers merge, and one had an exclusive mega deal with your direct competitor which became null and void if that company serviced you. Guess what? Your contract is getting dropped faster than a hot potato covered in scalding oil. And your primary supply source goes up in smoke.

Besides the fact that these Corporations Will Soon Rule the World thanks to the likes of politicians like the Harperman (who makes Chicago politicians look good!), which will bring with it a new level of damnation to the entire world, they are a damnation unto themselves and generally hurt our supply chains at least as much as they help.

Why You Should NOT Build Your Own e-Procurement Platform

A couple of months ago, SI ran a short series on Why You Should Not Build Your Own e-Sourcing System, which also included pieces on Why You Should Not Build Your Own Spend Analysis, Why You Should Not Build Your Own e-Negotiation Platform, and
Why You Should Not Build Your Own Decision Optimization because he heard that a few public sector organizations have this crazy idea that they can build their own and that it can, somehow, compete with best-of-breed solutions on the market today. As per that series, this is not the case.

Neither is it the case that an organization should build its own C(L)M system, as per SI’s post last week on Why You Should Not Build Your Own Contract Management System. It seems that there are (at least) a few organizations that not only think they can (which is often true) but think they should (which is usually not a good idea). Unfortunately, it doesn’t stop there.

Since basic e-Negotiation and e-Procurement is a commodity, and there are even free and open source solutions for both still available on the net (like WhyAbe and archived versions of open source by Coupa and Bupros), some organizations and public sectors think they can roll their own and, believe it or not, do it cheaper and better than just acquiring a low-cost on-demand solution (which might even cost less than the resources the organization / public sector body would require to maintain their own software and hardware, not counting the dollars they would have to invest up front to roll their own). When it comes to B2B or B2C, building your own in this day and age is, well, ridiculous. With so many options to choose from, the chances of your organization not being able to find a cheap, easy solution that meets at least 80% of your needs, and 90% with a few minor process changes, is low. Not only are there no cost savings (which becomes clear when a full total cost of ownership is done, see this classic SI post on X), there’s no value generated by building your own solution. Inflation is coming back with a vengeance, GDP is slowed to a crawl in first world countries, and risks are multiplying faster than Fibonacci’s rabbits. Wasting money on anything with no risk of value generation is just not something 99.99% of companies can afford to do.

While most P2P functionality is straight forward, and the cycle, which has more steps than pre-contract Sourcing, is simpler as it is more tactical in nature, a few requirements, while simple in theory, are actually quite complex to implement technically. In particular, the following three functions are quite demanding to implement technically.

Requisition Management

While the process of managing an approved requisition is no more complicated than managing any other e-Document, the process of approving a requisition can be quite complicated as it could require one or more approvers in one or more departments with the rules for determining who approves dependent upon the item, it’s category, it’s dollar value, it’s (un)approved status, the overall amount of the requisition, and whether or not any affected budget for the buyer, category, or department would be exceeded if the requisition was approved. The approval chain could actually consist of multiple approval chains that need to be executed in parallel, which can possibly be overruled by the last approver in the sub-chain or the entire chain (if it had to get final approval from a VP or CXO because of the amount), and which might need to be approved all-or-nothing for the requisition to help the requisitioner. This implies the need for powerful, configurable, and flexible workflow management that is rather time-consuming and sometimes tricky to implement and not always going to be available in an open source solution that you can easily integrate into a roll-your-own solution.

Purchase Order, Invoice, & Good Receipt Management

Not only do all of the these e-Documents have to be tracked, but they have to be cross-correlated in many-to-many-to-many relationships. For example, a purchase order may need to be split across multiple vendors, each of whom may ship the order in pieces due to geographic stock location and customer locations, and issue multiple invoices, and then the shipments might arrive in pieces, requiring each invoice to be associated with multiple good receipts, or which might arrive in unison, require one goods receipt to be associated with multiple invoices. Similarly, a shipment might arrive before an invoice, requiring goods receipts to be associated with one or more purchase orders. There’s a lot of cross-correlation logic here. Plus, documents can come in as XML, EDI, CSV, PDF (which need to be processed using OCR), or platform specific formats – so there is a lot of pre-processing that needs to be done as well. And then an m-way match has to occur against each line, because, otherwise, the platform is not very useful.

e-Payments & Tax Reclamation

These days, an organization that wants to go e-Payment has to support ACH and wires, and do very difficult secure integrations into a bank; Paypal, Stripe, and similar online platforms for small businesses; and credit cards so its employees can use their P-cards, and integrate into a credit card processor. It’s a lot of integration work that has to be done precisely, because if anything is not done up to Bank, Paypal, or CC Processor spec, and it gets hacked, it will be on the hook for all of the fraudulent payments that will result. And that can add up to hundreds or thousands or millions of dollars very quickly. Very, very quickly. This is one example of just because you can, it does not mean you should.

You’re not buying running shoes here. Just don’t do it.

Procurement 2020, Are we on Track?

Long time readers, including those who worked through last year’s mega series on The Future of Procurement and The “Future” Trend Expose already know the answer to this, but with only 5 years left to go, it’s worth exploring this topic that was all the rage 5 years ago but now no longer a whisper, even from the voices that were once the loudest in their great proclamations.

Why the silence? Because, to be frank, we’re not even close to their predictions, predictions which, to be honest, should have already been met by now.

While there is a lot of cannon fodder to go back to, let’s take Sourcing Innovation’s post from four summers past, which was penned at the height of the 2020 blathering, and which took us back to a report released by Hackett in 2008! In the first of the grand prophecies, which laid out the hierarchy of supply, rather than make grand projections, Hackett simply laid out a set of seven core competencies that businesses would need to acquire. And even though leading providers have offered next generation solutions for each of these since the end of the last decade, progress along these paths is still few and far between.

Business Process Sourcing

Many companies are still taking a scattered approach to process sourcing and outsourcing and indirect spend in general. Some are using BPOs, some are using GPOs, some are using both, and some are simply hiring contingent labour to handle the processes the business does not want to do, or does not have the skills to do, in house.

Supply Performance Management & Supplier Management

Formal Supplier Management is still weak, or non-existent at many companies, and fewer companies still have, or use, modern platforms to manage the performance of their supply base, even though there are a number of second generation platforms out there that have quite extensive capabilities. (The capabilities that are out there will be described in detail in the next platform-based Spend Matters Pro series on Supplier Relationship Management, starting after the CLM series concludes, which will be co-authored by the doctor, the maverick, the prophet, and the anarchist!)

Knowledge Management

According to Hackett, Sourcing will need to master content-driven analytics which integrate external data into internal data models …. We’re not there yet. Less than 1 in 2 Procurement departments are even doing basic spend analysis, yet alone more advanced content-driven analytics using multiple internal and external data sources! Knowledge is still quite poor. (Maybe that’s because only the leading sorcerors in the leading Procurement departments read Sourcing Innovation and Spend Matters CPO?)

Talent Management

After years of reducing the training budget to almost zero following the last big recession in the late 2000’s, there’s still been no sign of restoration and talent is still not getting the training they need to do the best job they could do. Until this happens, there’s no way that Supply Management will be the career path of choice for new talent.

Next Level Strategic Sourcing

Most companies still aren’t doing true TCO modelling or using strategic sourcing decision optimization, which is the only other supply management technology (in addition to true spend analysis) that has been demonstrated to find year-over-year savings. And a true next level company should be at TVM modelling and decision optimization, multi-tier analysis, trending and predictive analytics, long-term strategic supply chain redesign, and other advanced initiatives that will save money now and for years to come.

New Product Development & Introduction

As Hackett said long ago, Supply Management will have to include advanced design-for-supply support that incorporates multi-tier cost modelling, scenario planning and optimization, but seeing as how the majority of Supply Management departments are still struggling with TCO and weighted RFXs and e-Auctions, even though companies like Arena Solutions and DirectWorks (formerly Co-exprise) have been promoting this for close to a decade, this is still a ways off from being main-stream.

In other words, even though 2020 is approaching fast, we’re still a long way from 2020 Vision in Supply Management, despite the doctor‘s best efforts.

75 years ago today

Marcel Ravidat discovered the entrance to Lascaux Cave in southwestern France which was found to contain some of the best known examples of Upper Paleolithic art, estimated at 17,300 years old. Not only do these images depict animals that were roaming the region at the time, but recent research has suggested that the images may incorporate prehistoric star charts, demonstrating that early astronomy, which in ancient times took the form of star gazing and predictions, may have been alive and well long before the records thereof which started around 3,500 BC with the Sumerians (who developed cuneiform, the earliest writing system).

If the “Great Hall” images in the cave really do represent an extensive star map that records all of the main constellations as they appeared in the Paleolithic, than the end of the Upper (or Late) Paleolithic stone age may have occurred well before recent estimates of 8,800 BC in Europe as the beginnings of Astronomy are usually attributed to the Neolithic, which started around 4,900 BC in Europe.

This recent research poses some interesting questions. What societies predated the Mesopotamian, Egyptian, and Aegean cultures that were so advanced in observation, prediction, and organization (and created calendars like the one in Warren Field in Scotland that is the oldest known calendar from 8,000 BC) but yet left little trace and apparently no system of record?

If early astronomy does dates back over 17,000 years in the history of homo sapiens, does this mean that Procurement is actually the world’s third oldest profession? (And not it’s second?) (Either way, we still won’t get no respect.)

Societal Damnation 42: Pandemics

A pandemic, as defined by Wikipedia, is an epidemic of infectious disease that has spread through human populations across a large region. When people think of pandemics, they traditionally think of the big nine historical pandemics of cholera, influenza, typhus, smallpox, measles, tuberculosis, leprosy, malaria, and yellow fever, which have, at one time or another, wiped out thousands, hundreds of thousands, and sometimes even millions of people.

However, many of the diseases that cause pandemics are still alive and well, and new ones are cropping up all the time. Cholera, easily spread by contaminated water, is caused by bacteria, and still causes 100,000 deaths a year world wide. Influenza is constantly mutating and new strains of bird flu and swine flu which, without proper treatment and prevention, could easily cause millions of deaths are alive and well. And while typhus (typhoid fever) has mostly been eradicated, cases are still being reported in poorer African and South American countries and the bacteria still exists.

As far as we know the smallpox virus has been eliminated in the wild, with no reported cases in 38 years, but never say never, as typhus, which should also have been eradicated by now, is still cropping up. There are still almost 500,000 reported cases of measles a year, even though immunization against measles is easy. Tuberculosis is caused by bacteria and infects about 1% of the global population each year, with 9 Million new cases in 2013 and almost 1.5M deaths.

Leprosy still affects almost 200,000 people globally a year. Malaria, caused by parasitic protozoans transmitted by malicious mosquitos, is still rampant with over 200 Million infections a year, which resulted in 660,000 deaths in 2010. Yellow fever is another infection, caused by a virus, transmitted by murderous mosquito, that infects about 200,000 people a year and annually kills 30,000. And while these pandemics are primarily restricted to the equatorial climates, as temperatures warm and climate changes, those pesky mosquitos could start to migrate northwards.

But this isn’t the only list of highly contagious infectious diseases we have to watch out for. In addition to the ongoing HIV/AIDS pandemic, now we have SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome), a viral disease that cannot be cured or prevented that has an average fatality rate of 10% and that spreads easily by close person-to-person contact though respiratory droplets and which could spread like the great fire of 1666 through a dense metropolis. We also have the five strains of the Ebola virus, which spreads easily through contact with bodily fluids (including respiratory droplets or sweat) or infected bats or primates, and Ebola has an average mortality rate of 50%. We have the Marburg virus that causes Marburg Hemorrhagic fever which is a rare, but severe, fever caused by a filovirus (like Ebola) that has a mortality rate of up to 80%. We have hantavirus pulmonary syndrome with a 36% mortality rate in the US that is spread by contact with exposure to droppings of infected mice. (Which means an uncontrolled mice population could bring a new black death that, with unprecedented levels of population density, puts the first round to shame. Remember, just because mice commissioned the earth, that doesn’t mean they won’t kill us all when they are done with their little experiment.)

We could go on, but you get the picture. Not all countries have centres for disease control as advanced as the CDC or the ability to rapidly contain epidemics which could, in today’s hyper-connected and ultra-densely populated world, easily transform into global pandemics overnight. Hollywood might worry about us all contracting a hyper-infectious disease that turns us into zombies, but the reality is that the next plague will probably skip that step and make corpses of us all instead.

So why is SI being so grim? Because, despite the focus of most sites that focus in on the physical, financial, and information supply chains, the reality is that supply chains still run on people. People (control the machines that) make the goods. People control the money (even if it is just the people in banks sometimes). And people input the data that our information systems run on. Without people, supply chains will come to a halt from both an inbound (with no one to supply) and an outbound (with no one left alive to buy) perspective. Not only must we be ever vigilant in keeping our employees safe, but we must be even more vigilant in keeping them well. We need them alive.

And for those dreamers among you, you can forget about replacing your workers with robots or computer algorithms. Remember that we have been promised replacement robot workers since Elektro was debuted at the 1939 New York World’s Fair, but engineers still have not delivered. Not just because we have no true AI (and that’s a good thing*), but because we are still unable to construct systems as flexible and adaptable as the organic systems created by nature.

* what use would intelligent robots have for ugly sacs of water besides to harvest our bioelectric energy?**

** bonus points if you get the two references contained within