Author Archives: thedoctor

Half of Procurement Leaders Expect Their Budgets to Increase. Are They the Kings of Wishful Thinking?

A recent article over on the Supply Chain Quarterly (which launched about the same time as an article on the Supply Chain Management Review) quoted the newly released 2024 State of Procurement Data Report from Amazon Business (whose PR team was working overtime) that was revealed at Amazon Business Reshape. The report, which surveyed 3,000 buyers, procurement decision makers, and organizational leaders, had a number of interesting statistics.

The ones quoted by Amazon Business on their site included:

  • 95% of decision-makers acknowledge that there’s room for procurement optimization
    (which says to the doctor that 5% of decision makers are clueless and need to be replaced)
  • 85% of respondents say the difficulty of sourcing suppliers that follow sustainable practices prevents their company from setting or achieving strategic sustainability goals for procurement
    (which is totally logical because when there is a national demand for something that is in extremely limited supply, most companies will fail; it’s like demanding gender equality in STEM organizations in North America; on average, women are 25% of STEM workers; this means that for every STEM organization where they manage to fill more than 25% of their positions with women, there is an organization of equal size that won’t)
  • 81% of respondents had mandates to buy from certified sellers, which might include sustainable, local, or disadvantaged group-owned businesses
    (and it would be nice to know what percentage achieved those mandates; the doctor would be surprised if more than 25%, at most, succeeded)

The SCQ and SCMR picked up on different statistics, and you can read the articles to find out, but the most interesting to the doctor is:

  • 53% of business respondents in the survey expect their budgets to increase in 2024.

Go West, Young Man, Go West and pan for the gold! As far as the doctor is concerned, you’re the King(s) of Wishful Thinking. And, if you really want to, you can call me a bitch like it’s a bad thing for suggesting you’re so far out of this world that you’re a space oddity, but it doesn’t change the fact that you need to sit back, have a deep think, and accept the reality that it’s not going to.

Before you find new offensive adjectives to describe the doctor, ask yourself: When was the last time you received a significant budget increase that was above inflation? And when did it include even a dollar more than what was needed for the new hire(s) you fought nine months for or the system that your CFO decided he or she liked best? And if so, was it enough to actually acquire a new system or an extra hire you didn’t have to fight nine months for? In other words, when was the last time an increase you received was truly significant?

Procurement needs to remember that, in most organizations, it is still looked at as a cost center even though it may be the only profit center a company has left in an inflationary economy with declining consumer demand. As a result, with budget scraps are few and far between, those budget scraps are going to continue to go to sales and marketing hoping that the closers and the mad men will save them, and we all know that’s not going to change anytime soon in most companies.

Expectation is not always reality. And wishful thinking is just that. To succeed, don’t plan for any increases beyond specific increases for specific headcount or CFO friendly systems you have already hard fought and negotiated. This way, you won’t feel let down and you’ll be setup for success.

And while my gloomy glass more-than-half-empty outlook on the situation may not be very gladdening, remember that you are Procurement Pros, you always have sour lemons (and nothing else), and when challenged, you still find ways to make the best lemonade. Prepare for tough times and, on the off chance they are a little less tough, you are guaranteed to succeed.

What Impact Will Power Politics Have on the Sustainable Acquisition of Raw Materials?

the doctor doesn’t know, but it’s a question we need to ask, and answer, before politicians run away with an agenda that maximizes their bank account while simultaneously maximizing economic and environmental damage.

In September, JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon stated that geopolitics is the world’s biggest risk and, more specifically, that we have dealt with inflation before, we dealt with deficits before, we have dealt with recessions before, and we haven’t really seen something like this pretty much since World War II. And while he didn’t mention power politics in particular, we’ve seen a lot of first world countries elect leaders with protectionist/centrist viewpoints, a directorial demeanor, and anti- free-trade stances.

Due to a loss of jobs, a loss of manufacturing, and a lack of reliability of supply, we’ve seen a lot of pushback on China (which is a major global source of many raw materials, and rare-earths in particular) while India is gaining ground in the BRICS (thanks to the anti-Russian Sentiment among those Pro-Ukraine and the instability of the Brazilian economy along with the China pushback), the United States implementing Buy American policies, the EU taxing anything they are sanctioning or trying to enforce “Buy EU” policies on, and the UK making decisions since (and including) Brexit that no one understands.

Now, we should all be buying local to the extent possible (which might be the local farm, the state farm, or the farm one country south if ours is too cold to grow the produce we need; and, similarly, a factory in the country or a neighbouring one), when it comes to certain raw materials, especially rare earths and metals for which we do not have (more sustainable) alternatives, one doesn’t always have a choice. And the reality is that, for a given country, only one country will have the most sustainable source of rare earth and/or metal supply when you take into account the mining operation, the processing operation, and global shipping. And if protectionist/centrist/trade policies prevent purchasing from that country, and the next two or three most sustainable (and/or most economical if your company is in/selling primarily to a developing country and you can only afford so many sources), the alternatives are not good.

So while it’s hard to quantify what the current era or power politics will have on the sustainable acquisition of raw materials and (precious) metals, it’s a question your organization needs to answer if you rely on such, and take steps to inform your local lobbying organizations to make sure that critical, sustainable, sources of supply are not blocked until alternatives are developed (especially if your organization needs to hit carbon [reduction] targets).

And if you don’t think this is an important topic, then why did Dr. Naoise McDonagh, a Lecturer at Edith Cowan University and a former Board Member of the Australian Institute of International Affairs, recently publish an article in the interpreter (published by the Lowy Institute) on why Australia must play the geoeconomics game, or risk being side-lined.

Dr. McDonagh believes that acts such as the US’ IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) or the EU’s Critical Raw Materials Regulation, designed to drive growth in a particular industry (and, in particular, North American or EU-based EV supply chains) will act as a vast black hole sucking global capital from other destinations operating on purely comparative advantage terms which includes Australia.

Dr. McDonagh argues that these acts, and similar measures being implemented globally, are part of a geopolitical transition that is creating a two-level world economy: a standard economy with normal market access and a de-risked economy with restricted access for actors of concern. And since the types of restricted access we are seeing typically revolve around rare earths and metals, this means that we need to ask the question we asked in the title: What Impact Will Power Politics Have on the Sustainable Acquisition of Raw Materials?

the doctor doesn’t think the answer is obvious, and definitely doesn’t agree that Dr. McDonagh’s insistence that the answer for Austrailia is the 10-year Australian Renewable Industry Package because the doctor believes the question is more nuanced than anyone currently understands. However, the doctor does agree with Dr. McDonagh’s reading of the situation and that power politics is quickly becoming one of the most significant risks to your supply chain, which is even more unpredictable than strikes and natural disasters.

If you have a partial answer, comment on LinkedIn. We need them before bad decisions are made for us.

The One Sign You Don’t Have a Highly Functional Procurement Department

Recently, on Linked In, Anders Lillevik, who (once) tried to buy and drowned in paperwork (which is why he decided he needed to find a Focal Point), decided to post what he thought were the six signs your procurement efforts aren’t delivering the impact they should. In his view, they were:

  1. No spend visibility
  2. Unhappy customers
  3. Backlogs and delays
  4. Poor supplier relationships
  5. Reliance on manual processes
  6. Department is seen as tactical, not strategic

… which were signs that your Procurement department is not delivering, but not the one sign you have to look for to determine whether or not you have a highly functional Procurement department, since these are all symptoms of a single root cause. In fact, if you wanted to go down this route, instead of identifying the core problem, you could also add the following to Anders’ list:

  1. Spend is spiralling out of control while the
  2. Company is having to fire-sale / toss out expired products and outdated inventory on a quarterly basis and
  3. Your brand is in the toilet thanks to excessive carbon, poor working conditions / human slavery, and excessive waste (and wasteful practices) in the supply chain.
  4. Every department head is screaming “The Sky is Falling!”, “The Sky is Falling!”.

… as these are also signs that your procurement efforts aren’t delivering the efforts. But if you want to know whether or not you have a highly functional Procurement department, all you have to really do is answer this one question:

Do you have a strong CPO providing quarterly metrics charting success improvements over time?

Now we know this is a bit of a cheat, as it’s actually two parts, as just thinking you have a strong CPO is not enough, you need the metric-based reporting to verify, but that’s it. If you have a Strong CPO leading a procurement team charting key metrics across all relevant areas, key categories and initiatives get managed, and, eventually, improved. Moreover, you will find that:

  1. you have great spend visibility across all Spend Under Management (SUM) which will increase over time
  2. you have happier customers as your quality, reliability, and predictability improve in key areas and remain consistent in others
  3. backlogs reduce over time along with unexpected supply chain delays
  4. supplier relationships, at least for key products and services, improve
  5. process automation is employed where appropriate
  6. the department starts to assist other departments with strategy, and begins its journey from tactical to strategic
  7. spend increases are at least contained to inflation
  8. inventory management (and inventory loss) improves
  9. improved supplier vetting and risk analysis weeds out any suppliers known to be exceptionally polluting, use sub-tier suppliers that turn a blind eye to working conditions or slave labour, or be completely indifferent to CSR activities
  10. the department heads stop screaming “The Sky is Falling!” and instead scream “Why Is Everything So Bl00dy Expensive!” (even though Procurement consistently meets or beats market prices)

Not perfect, but all signs that your procurement efforts are delivering the impact they should, or at least getting there.

Source-to-Pay+: An Introduction to Supply Chain Risk

If you missed the risk series, you might want to catch up. Risk doesn’t just stem from your immediate inbound tier 1 suppliers, it stems from your entire inbound supply chain. Your Supplier “Risk” Management solution only gives you a partial picture at best. Find out what you need to get the rest!

1: The Beginning
2: End-to-End
3: Corporate Risk
4a: Third Party Risk, Part 1
4b: Third Party Risk, Part 2
5: Supply Chain Risk, Generic
6: In-Transport Risk
7: Multi-Tier Supply Chain Risk
8: Analytics / Control Center
9: Cyber Risk

Data-Driven Workforce Planning — WTF?

Data is good. And you should make use of it all the time. And while data might help you identify gaps in your work force capability, it can’t help you plan your future workforce. Why? A couple of reasons. First of all, you don’t know what’s coming down the pipe in future Procurement and Supply Chain needs and issues. Secondly, existing skill sets may not be enough to address those future needs and issues (which could require evolved versions of current skill sets or even entirely new skill sets). So while the doctor would agree that the 14% of Procurement Leaders who believe they have adequate talent to meet future needs are idiots that never look at the data, he would also argue that looking at the data alone will not allow one to adequately define their workforce needs.

Planning implies you are building a workforce for the future. Data can only identify gaps in your workforce today. And while you need to fill those gaps to conquer today’s challenges, put out the fires, and get to the point where you can start seriously thinking about the future, analyzing historical data is not going to get you there. You need to look at how new technologies will change production, how new technology will change logistics (not just green vehicles, but better planning technologies, more efficient cross-docking techniques, etc.), how regulations will impact trade, and so on. There’s no data on that yet (other than patent documents, vendor spec sheets, draft legislation, and so on). So how can you analyze data you don’t have?

So, why do we need to talk about this? Well, Info-Tech Research group is flooding the PR and Business News Wires with an article on how “data-driven workforce planning is key to future-proofing organizations”. And while data-driven workforce planning is key to getting your workforce right today, as we just explained above, it can’t future proof your workforce because you don’t know what skills your future workforce will need.

Yes, there are serious talent shortages in IT and Procurement. Yes, it reinforces the reality that a proactive approach to workforce management is something that most organizations should have been doing a decade ago. Yes data-driven insights are often the fastest way to see where you don’t have enough people or enough people with the right skills to tackle the job. And yes tools that can help you are highly valuable. But don’t confuse solving today’s challenges with people you will hire tomorrow with solving the problem of future workforce planning.

Now, if you hire the right people with the right education and the right skill sets in analytics and the ability to learn on their own, they will be more prepared than those employed by your peers. This may put you in a better place, as they may even have the skills to identify the gaps when the world changes, but there are no guarantees. So find top talent with the education, drive, and ability to learn, continually train them, give them time to look ahead once in a while, and you’ll be better off than those who just hire the cheapest resource they can to put out the latest fire.