Daily Archives: January 29, 2018

Supply Market Intelligence … Harder than it Looks Part I

Building on our recent risk focus, we turn our attention to supply market intelligence which, as the maverick points out, is critical as much for supply risk as it is for value creation.

It’s critically important, but where do you find the intelligence you need? As pointed out in a Spend Matters (main site) post, there are a number of sources that might yield intelligence, including:

Suppliers

  • company websites
  • financial statements / reports
  • request for information
  • supplier interviews

Internal Sources

  • internal stakeholder interviews
  • performance reporting
  • supplier relationship management (SRM) programs

External Sources

  • news feeds and alerts
  • price index forecasts
  • blog and social media
  • peer companies
  • research services
  • advisory programs

But what’s the right source?

Consider the following downsides:

Suppliers

  • company websites display only what the supplier wants you to see
  • financial statements / reports only display high level summaries, they don’t allow you to identify high spend or high risk suppliers or categories
  • request for information only capture what you ask for, and only what the supplier shares
  • supplier interviews again only capture what you ask for, and only what the supplier representative shares

Internal Sources

  • internal stakeholder interviews capture their expertise and bias
  • performance reporting captures hard metrics, but only what you take the time to capture
  • supplier relationship management (SRM) programs vary by company and supplier

External Sources

  • news feeds and alerts – cover the angles exposed or available to journalists
  • price index forecasts – use in-house algorithms that may or may not be right
  • blog and social media – cover the angles seen by bloggers
  • peer companies – may cover the views of the peers, or may cover the perceptions they want to pass on
  • research services – tend to provide hard data, but on the areas they cover
  • advisory programs – are limited to the expertise of the advisors

So what’s right?