Monthly Archives: September 2016

Want to Fail Faster? Automate it! (Repost)


This post first appeared six years ago. But it’s as relevant today as you plan your budget requests for the acquisition of new Supply Management systems, so it’s being reposted.

This article in the McKinsey Quarterly on a better way to automate service operations nailed it: processes and work practices are best designed and implemented before companies roll out the new IT. Otherwise, the COO will walk into the field operations control center after spending millions on a new automated scheduling and dispatching system (and over a year implementing the software and installing the hardware) only to find that response times have not improved, and the number of jobs each engineer handles in a day has not increased.

This experience is all to common for leaders of service operations organizations that manage large groups of remote or distributed employees, including those that have made multi-million dollar IT investments in areas such as automated dispatching, schedule prioritization, workflow automation, and performance management. This is because these systems require processes and work practices different from those used in non-IT enabled situations.

This means that before a company implements a new service management system, the company not only has to sit down and baseline its current operations, but determine how these processes need to change in order to appropriately utilize the capabilities of an automated system. This is because best practices developed over the years to insure that manual processes don’t break down tend to be over cautious due to the limitations of the average person to manually schedule hundreds, or thousands, of resources across thousands of jobs — limitations that today’s software doesn’t have.

To succeed, a company needs to go back to square one and define the goals of its service operations, the resources it has available, and the equipment at the resources’ disposal. It has to throw away all of the old rules and constraints and be sure to only define true constraints (an engineer is only available 8 hours a day, service for tier 1 contracts must occur within 24 hours, etc), not perceived constraints (an engineer can only handle two calls a day, the repair must be by an engineer at the closest office, etc.). And then it has to trust the system which can optimize across thousands of variables.


Remember, a good Supply Management function is a service to the rest of the organization, so it’s important they have the processes and platforms to serve the organization right.

Fifty Years Ago Today …

The National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act became law in the US and the roads got a lot safer for everyone. Considering that this was about the time that trucking became the major means of transport in the US (despite the fact that well designed rail could be more energy and cost efficient, but as per Tuesday’s post, many industries are not energy or cost efficient), this was a very good thing as safer roads make surer deliveries.

What do you think LOLCat?

If AP is the Tax Department, Make Sure They Optimize Tax Recovery!

A recent guest post on spend matters that called Accounts Payable: The New Tax Department noted that as governments worldwide continue the fight against tax fraud, they are requiring more data from enterprises, even down to the individual invoice level.

The guest post also notes that VAT/GST payers often find these requirements onerous, as they can delay operations and increase processing costs for individual transactions, but it doesn’t have to be this way.

An appropriate software platform that supports both customer e-Invoicing from invoices that originate from the organization and customer paper invoicing and also supports the tracking of each tax collected (against an appropriate tax code) can make the identification, consolidation, and submission of such invoices a snap (as long as it supports the required output data format). One click can generate the “tax package” for a country of choice and a simple upload to the government site can send it on its way. It doesn’t have to be hard.

And even if your organization does not have to do this today, it should plan for it, especially if it wants to go international. Currently, as per the post, 16 countries require individual tax invoices and the number is growing. Moreover, many countries can ask for them at any time and an inability to produce quickly can land you in very hot water.

But even more important than tax payment is tax reclamation. If you have a really good platform, it will allow you to import the invoices you receive from your suppliers, track the tax you pay by tax code, and automatically calculate tax owed to you (as you pay tax you collect and get reimbursed for tax you pay in many countries) as well as the supporting tax package (if required). Remember, the governments typically only care about getting their share and the invoice submission laws are all about making sure you pay what you’re supposed to, not about making sure you get credit for what you pay.

Now, if you are operating in a dozen countries, it will be up to legal and finance to figure out which ones you have to collect in, report in, and what taxes and reports are relevant, and this will generally be beyond the capability of most e-Procurement and AP programs, but the necessary data:

  • standard tax code id
  • UNSPSC and/or HTS code
  • collected / paid
  • amount
  • date
  • etc.

as well as the required data formats (EDI, XML, etc.), and one-click import/export (for a standard date range) are easy to support — and any good e-Procurement platform should support it (and if it doesn’t, it’s not a platform for you). And you need one of these, so you can get the AP department what they need to not only make governments and suppliers happy, but make sure you reclaim every penny of tax globally you are required to. Taxes add up … fast … when not reclaimed. So make sure your Procurement platform does what it needs to do to support your reclamation.

Who Do Catalogs Serve? Not Who They Are Supposed to!

Over on Spend Matters, the prophet and the maverick recently co-authored a post that asked Do Catalogs Serve Suppliers or Buyers More?. The answer varied depending upon the (age of the) platform, the implementation, the intent, and the author, but the simple answer — which did not really come through loud and clear in their post(s) — is not who they are supposed to serve. Especially if it’s a first generation catalog.

We’ll take first generation catalogs first.

A first generation catalog is nothing more than an electronic version of a paper catalogue — and when you are in a rush to find and order a product, how good is that? With a paper catalogue, you flip to the index, hope the keywords you can think of are there, and hope the product on the page you flip to will do the job at a decent price. With an e-catalog, you are scanning through a keyword index or searching keywords and hoping the right product at the right price comes up. Not that useful, whether you are the buyer (who may or may not find what you want) or the supplier (who may or may not have their product found and requisitioned), especially when the buyer has to search each catalogue separately and will stop when the find the first acceptable product (which could be in another supplier’s catalog).

A second generation catalog is a bit better as it indexes all text, allows all supplier catalogs to be searched simultaneously, allows side-by-side comparison, single cart, and automatic PO splits across suppliers when a requisition is approved. But it’s still not perfect. The product might not be there. It might be out of stock. The price might not be right — or there may be no capability to communicate with the supplier for clarification on important details. The buyer is not served, and the supplier is not served.

Third generation catalogs are much better, and were supposed to solve the issues as they also allow punch-outs; real-time federated search across internal, supplier, and punch-out catalogs; communication; RFX; preferred and contract items to be weighted or forced to the top of the listing; budget integration; and visual guilt features, to make sure a buyer buys what should be bought when and how it should be bought. This helps Procurement help buyers buy on-contract items on-contract and steer purchases to preferred suppliers. And it helps suppliers because they know if they have a contract or are preferred, buyers will be guided to them.

But it doesn’t serve either party if the need isn’t served by an on-contract item in stock at a preferred supplier, because the buy might not be appropriate for catalogs in the first place. If the buyer buys an overpriced item via punch-out, that doesn’t help Procurement. And if the buyer buys the wrong product from the supplier when there was a better one, the supplier gets a bad rap and may not be bought from again.

The problem is catalogs, like GPOs, are presented as the be-all, end-all tail-spend management solution when, in reality, tail spend (as pointed out in Sourcing Innovation’s recent paper on An Introduction to Tail Spend — and why you need a technology-based solution, tail-spend is a very complex beast that is often only suitably served by a mix of catalog, RFX, and auction buys, often optimization-backed, with the solution varying with market conditions and particularities of the need.

And a catalog will never tell you when it is the right — or wrong solution. So unless it’s only a part of a full tail-spend suite, with expert guidance (via expert programmed workflows), it won’t even come close to serving either party. Remember that before buying a “new and improved” e-Catalog solution.

The Death of Factoring Will Be Highly Exaggerated

Last Friday, Spend Matters published a great Friday rant by the prophet aptly titled Die Factoring, Die! because Factoring can be the death of many an uninformed supplier who, like desperate individuals, take out payday loans to pay off payday loans at insanely compounding interest rates until they go bankrupt.

Factoring should die. It is no longer needed, but the doctor fears just like the pulp industry has survived for over a century when it should have died out long ago, it will still be around a century later. Just like the pulp industry had the perfect environment to grow until it was big and powerful enough to effectively outlaw the competition, the factoring industry has the same perfect environment to grow and crush the better options.

Before we explain, we’ll point out that just like there is a better alternative to factoring, as the prophet pointed out in his post, there is a better alternative to wood-based paper. In particular, the alternative that was around before the wood-based paper craze: hemp. Whereas hardwood trees take decades to mature, hemp can be grown and harvested in a single growing season. It’s the number one biomass producer on the planet (10 tons per acre in 4 months) and contains 77% cellulose (needed for paper) compared to the average tree at 30%. It’s stronger, the paper lasts centuries longer, does not require any bleaching, and the production requires significantly less water and energy than paper production from trees. (The pulp and paper industry uses more water to produce one ton of product than any other industry and is the fifth largest consumer of energy on the planet.) Hemp for paper is many order of magnitudes better, but since hemp (which contains, on average, 1/5 to 1/10th the THC of cannabis) was made illegal with the delegalization of THC in North America, it’s not an option.

This was possible because the pulp and paper industry was rich and powerful enough to lobby for the delegalization across the board, vs. just the delegalization of cannabis. They got that way because, during the start of the industrial revolution, when paper was needed en-masse to “power” back offices, North America was filled with old hardwood forests and there was not much hemp, as hemp was native to Central and South America. The population was much smaller than it is now, the possibility of deforestation was not even considered (as manual logging could only go so fast), and the technology to produce paper from pulp was understood and easy (at the time). And it could meet demand fast — logging could happen year round whereas hemp could only be harvested once a year in many of the central and northern parts of the US. So it became the defacto paper producing industry, and since everyone needed paper, it obtained a monopoly. And since no one knew better, or was even allowed to learn of a better way, the monopoly persists until this day.

Similarly, the factoring industry has obtained a monopoly on what is effectively “payday lending” to suppliers that need money now, can’t get it from the bank, and don’t want to beg the local “godfather” for a loan (at interest rates that put even North American credit card companies to shame, with default penalties much worse than repossession). How did it get like this? First of all, there have been no other viable options for many of these suppliers (as not all suppliers are lucky enough to get buyers that will offer the [slightly] better alternative of early payment discounting, as not all buyers can afford that). Secondly, growth demands working capital, and the capital has to come from wherever it can, and if you are a supplier in an emerging or tight market, it’s often factoring or death. Thirdly, the banks stayed out of it for too long, allowing the industry to grow and cement on its own, and now that it is “proven”, the banks have been drawn to it like moths to a flame, and they control the global cash flow.

So as long as it is effectively a cash cow, which it is as it is a slow cash drain (death) for most suppliers (meaning that you’ll acquire and keep more customers in a year than you bankrupt), more suppliers need it everyday (as they try to stay in business when times become troubled or they try to grow faster than they can afford), and it’s relatively low risk compared to other types of lending, it’s going to continue to gain support and traction from the lenders, who are going to do their best to present it as the only option available. And some suppliers will believe, lock-in, and get trapped in the factor cycle, factoring more and more invoices over time until every invoice needs to be factored as soon as it is issued just so the supplier can make payroll.

So even though modern platforms, backed by “big data” (even though the data doesn’t have to be all that “big” to adequately calculate risk and buyer payment time-frames), and enabled by networks (that give the supplier dozens or hundreds of options including half a dozen or dozens of better ones), could provide better options, the doctor just doesn’t see it happening any time soon. We’ve known since 2000 that multi-line item optimization can save an organization 10% or more on just about every sourcing event (and since Aberdeen’s advanced sourcing study in 2005 that it will save an organization an average of 12% across all categories) and still less than 10% of organizations using strategic sourcing platforms are effectively employing it — even though modern optimization-backed sourcing platforms make it easy enough for even junior buyers to use it self-serve and run basic models and identify considerable savings without expert support. (Not always the full 10% to 12%, but enough savings to justify its use on each and every event!) Factoring is finance, and banks have made finance unnecessarily complicated to maintain the monopoly. So it’s here to stay. And when big data and networks enter the picture, you can bet it will be the factorers, and not the factorees, that gain.

It’s sad, but for now — and the foreseeable future, it’s true.