Author Archives: thedoctor

Did the Oompa Loompas Finally Get Some Christmas Cheer?

Last year, when we asked what about the Oompa Loompas, we noted that Hershey was undertaking a huge supply chain and manufacturing project to enhance agility and efficiency in an effort to eventually save 300 Million annually (with 30% savings due to supply chain productivity improvements alone), but noted nothing was said about the Oompa Loompas who wanted to return to the glory days of chocalateering, having endured almost two decades of declining work in the chocolate industry which forced many of them into coding positions at SaaS startups, which usually didn’t work out so well.

We know. We’ve been chronicling their fate since 2007 when they had to get into the desert chocolate business to survive. (That’s not a typo!)

However, as per a recent press release on OpenPR, the chocolate market is on a promising growth trajectory, driven by evolving consumer preferences and innovative product offerings. More specifically, the chocolate market is expected to experience steady growth, reaching a value of $175.52 billion by 2029. This reflects a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 4.7% during the forecast period. Stability and growth is good. This should lead to more positions for the Oompa Loompas, even if they are spending more time programming automated systems to blend chocolate than doing it the old fashioned way (where they can create true confectionary masterpieces) and allow them to use both their new and old skills.

But again, time will tell if this really is good news or not. All I know is that, after the last two decades of hardship and misery, they shouldn’t get their hopes up!

Breaking Down the Risks: Regulatory compliance issues

There will always be a need to comply with local laws and regulations. Always. So let’s get to it.

Expounding the Pounding

Regulations abound (especially in Europe), and the products/services you sell and buy need to conform to all of them. These regulations relate to the materials, production methods, human resources, carbon and waste production, storage and transport, packaging, and even labelling.

And the severity of non-compliance can be severe. For each violation, your punishment for violations can range from fines to seizure to criminal charges! Even for the most innocuous aspect of product management: labelling. If the labels are incomplete, you can be fined. If the labels are not in the required language, your products can be seized and held indefinitely or destroyed. And if the labels are intentionally inaccurate, because you are trying to skirt regulatory requirements by not reformulating your production to exclude banned materials or meet the maximums for potentially dangerous materials, you can be criminally charged.

Moreover, regulations and requirements can be different in every single country you source from, ship through, and ship to and your organization needs to be aware of all of them so a “gotcha” doesn’t put your organization in a difficult situation without supply but with regulators breathing down your neck and threatening large fines, product destruction, and/or criminal charges.

Reducing the Risk

There’s no easy, or even, complete answer here, but what you need to build is:

Compliance 360.

You need a solution that

  1. tracks all of the relevant human resources, health & safety, production/(hazardous) material utilization, carbon/GHG production, packaging, labelling, and transport regulations for each country you build in, ship through, and sell in that can also
  2. match that regulation to each product/component/material you buy so that you can ensure that your supplier, carrier, or risk management department is aware of, and conforms to, the regulations as appropriate

This is much easier said than done. This requires

  1. providers who track the appropriate regulations in each country and how they translate into specific requirements that companies need to meet
  2. the capability to merge all of this regulatory insight into a common framework
    (often through a specialized platform)
  3. the capability to match these regulatory requirements to specific products … and this requires a system that maintains complete harmonized product (and product related) information from design and manufacturing through packaging and labelling to transport and storage along with countries of production/transport/sales to match to the regulations. Guess what? Unless you’ve harmonized all of this data into a common, integrated data model for multi-level planning (as you would if you integrated direct sourcing with supply chain and logistics, as per the series the doctor and Bob Ferrari did on why Direct Sourcing needs to be integrated with Supply Chain, summarized in Part 7), your chances of matching requirements to products are quite low. Not good!

This is one of the most extensive, and most involved risks, because there can be dozens to hundreds of requirements you need to adhere to in each region in which you do business, depending on the product (line) in question, but it is one you need to get a good grip on or supply assurance is going to become significantly harder as time goes on.

Breaking Down the Risks: Supply shortages/constraints / Competitive alternatives

Supply will never be assured. You have to be ready for that! Let’s again begin by expounding the pounding and then give a few tips on reducing the risks.

Expounding the Pounding

In some ways, this is one of the key risks contributing to the rising cost/spend pressure risk that we discussed in our last article, because even if an organization doesn’t see it, their tier 1 (and tier 2) suppliers will!

However, it is definitely its own category as there might be a surplus of supply, but current constraints make it inaccessible. For example, in the rare earths category in particular, the majority of global supply might be from one or two countries. If those countries become inaccessible due to a sanction, border closing due to a war or geopolitical unrest, or a logistics (cost) nightmare, then you effectively have a shortage even if there are theoretically stockpiles in a warehouse waiting for someone.

Plus, you don’t just have constraints around production, you have them around logistics (how many pallets can fit in the truck, how many pallets in the container, how many containers you can have on the ship, etc.), intermediate storage, export and import (as there are quotas and limits and passing those can be costly), and so on. All of these constraints can impact your supply and cause chaos.

Reducing the Risk

The two generic answer(s) here are the same as two of the answers to the risk of rising costs in our last post. You need to ensure that you always have

  1. Alternate Supply Sources Always Active
  2. Alternative Product/Component/Material Pre-Defined

That’s it. If supply is not available from supplier A, you need to have a supplier B on retainer (low minimum contract) ready to go. If there is all of a sudden no significant source for a material (due to a disaster, border closing, or trade route interruption), then you need to have an alternate design that can use an alternate material and switch production.

Breaking Down the Risks: Rising cost/ spend pressures/inflation

This risk is as old as Procurement itself. Demand drives prices. Always has, always will. But let’s start by expounding the pounding before we give you a few tips to deal with it.

Expounding the Pounding

Costs rise. Continually. The average rate of inflation in the United States over the past hundred years is approximately 3.2%. That means that something that cost $1 in 1914 would cost approximately $33 today. Costs go up. However, costs are not static. During pandemics, wars, natural disasters, and market crashes where there are huge drops in supply and surges in demand, or vice-versa, the average rate of inflation can quintuple or more (with a recorded rate of 23.7% in June 1920). The same happened to shipping costs during the pandemic. Three thousand dollar shipping contains shot up to thirty thousand, a factor of ten.

However, it’s not just inflation, and surges, that are the issue. It’s also consumer demand. If consumer demand shrinks as costs rise, and the company, and its suppliers, are unable to reach and maintain the optimal economy of scale, costs will rise even more. (Every company has its own optimal output level where it can operate at maximum efficiency and maximize outputs relative to inputs. If output is too low, and resources are not being used at capacity during regular operating intervals, the cost per unit of product is higher than it should be. Similarly, if that peak is surpassed, then overtime will need to be added, additional equipment and lines, which can’t be kept producing at optimal levels, will need to be added and so on.)

And, of course, it is available supply. If the product requires a renewable commodity or raw material where there are limited harvests or limited mining capacity, there just won’t be the supply to meet a rapid demand surge. This will cause prices to surge even more (as sellers sell only to the highest bidders as the balance of power shifts fully to them).

Due to the rapid rise in global market uncertainty around product and material availability and cost — due in part to an increase in natural disasters and extreme weather, wars, geopolitics and trade wars — managing this balance between consumer demand, market supply, cost, and inflation is a tough equation.

Reducing the Risk

There’s no easy or truly global solution here. Every category, and product, is different. Every supply and demand market is different. Every country has its own trade rules, economic plans, and sanctions. And all of this can change overnight. A mine collapse or factory fire. A rapid drop in demand due to recession. A new sanction or 145% tariff. And so on.

However, if we break it down, there are three main risks:

A) Unexpected Supply Unavailability

Due to a natural or man-made disaster, your (primary) source gets cut off.

B) Unexpected Drop in Consumer Demand

Due to a new external market condition (recession and/or massive layoffs, more popular competing product, brand backlash, etc.), consumer demand suddenly drops.

C) Unexpected rapid cost increase due to natural or man-made events.

A pandemic, droughts in Panama, or terrorists (in the Red Sea) slow down or cut off shipping routes and escalate costs. Or a mine collapse shoots up raw material costs.

For each of these risks, there is a primary solution:

A) Dual/Tri-Sourcing

It’s critical to always have an alternate source of supply in an alternate geography that can be scaled up rapidly if the primary source of supply becomes unavailable. Don’t do 80/20 or even 70/30 splits if the product, part, or material is critical. Do 60/40 and make sure both suppliers could handle at least 50% additional capacity before awarding. (That way you are still fine if the 40% supplier becomes unavailable as you should be able to scrape by long enough to find an emergency replacement supplier, even if the cost increases moderately. Most importantly, if the 40% supplier is willing to do some OT, you would still be fine for a short interval as long as you were willing to pay some OT related costs – and there’s no way that would be the case with a supplier getting less than 40% of the award.) Better yet, for (very) large categories, do 40/30/30 splits (possibly by giving majority per regions if your organization is global). In this situation, one supplier becoming unavailable wouldn’t be a serious problem as you’d be fine if the other suppliers could supply an extra 50% to 60%.

B) Flexible / Discount-Based Contracts

Never assuming continually increasing demand. Hope for it, but look at past averages, rises, and falls, and typical drops in demand from an unexpected, negative, market impact, and negotiate contracts for a range, with cost reductions (and not discounts) when thresholds are reached. In other words, once you know the expected worst case to expected best case range, ask for quotes for at least 3 tiers, the minimum, the expected, and the best case range and negotiate a contract with price breaks when certain demands are reached. (Suppliers will love to offer rebates when you hit a tier, but don’t fall for that because you’ll never realize them because the onus will be on you to prove that you’ve purchased the required quantity. Even if you have the best e-Procurement system on the planet and capture every order, as well as returns and show any refunds were accounted for, and can document it all, you still might not get the rebate. The supplier could claim hardship or, if the amount is significant enough, file for bankruptcy protection and restructuring. And even if they have the money, if you can’t assemble and provide the necessary documentation before the contract expires, forget about the rebate after the contract expires.) As long as you ensure every order, invoice, and goods receipt, flows through your e-Procurement system, you can ensure that as soon as the first discount tier is reached that you issue the PO for the lower amount. (And then your system will refuse to auto-approve it if the invoice doesn’t reduce the unit cost appropriately).

This way, you’re paying more than you’d like if you hit the worst case, but you’re not paying a huge penalty when you don’t hit the contracts and the suppliers come after you for damages.

C.i) Alternative Source Ramp-Up

If the price skyrocketed due to a supply issue with a specific region or supply base, you switch to the alternate supply in another region until the issue passes or you identify a new secondary (or tertiary) supplier for the product or component or material.

C.ii) Alternative Product/Component/Material

If the price skyrocketed due to a drop in supply, pushing all the power to the suppliers, then you switch to alternative products/components/materials. This is difficult because you need to have alternate designs ready to go for custom-made products and have previously identified alternatives for standard/off-the-shelf products which, while more costly or less desirable at the time, are now the most cost effective or most desirable products/components/materials due to the change in market dynamics by a material/component/product unavailability.

Unfortunately, while these solutions all sound simple, they are different for every category, product, material, organization, and geography. Risk management and supply assurance (as summarized the doctor‘s and Bob Ferrari’s Direct Sourcing MUST be Supply Chain Aware and Vice Versa series, summarized in Part 7) become as important as cost, and in some locales, carbon management when sourcing. The (expected) worst case has to be considered at all times and key events need to result in multiple, but balanced, awards.

And of course, when it comes to risk management, there will always be exceptions to the rule that you need to look out for.

Who’s Funding Your ProcureTech Vendor?

This question is more important now than ever! Not only is the RCD (Relative Corporate Debt) of many FinTech companies too high right now (See: Calculating RCD), signalling a decline in customer service and potential abandonment, if not outright vendor failure down the road, but the ongoing viability of many VC and PE firms, or at least their ability to support their investments, is also in question.

Many firms are too heavy on AI plays that are still losing as much as $4 (or more) for every $1 of revenue they take in, requiring massive ongoing investments to maintain. Even big PE funds only have so much cash to burn, and the only way they can do this is to liquidate assets and holdings if they can, or, in the worst case, simply write off losses (and associated future costs) of those holdings they can’t liquidate.

Softbank’s end-of-year investment in OpenAI really puts this into perspective, as chronicled by Mr. Klein of Curiouser.AI and Berkley in this LinkedIn post.

As far as I am concerned, this is bad news for any of SoftBank’s FinTech holdings that may require funding in the next few years, and a warning to make sure you don’t select / continue / depend on any of their FinTech holdings where they have a large or majority stake until verifying those holdings are profitable and likely to stay that way! (Now, SoftBank has traditionally had very good investment chops, so it’s likely the majority of holdings are profitable …)

However, they aren’t the only firm making huge over-investments in AI and weighting the portfolio down with companies that might never see a profit. This means that this warning also applies to many other Tech investment funds, starting with Thrive, Dragoneer, Altimeter, and Coatue who also have large stakes in OpenAI. They could all end up in the position where they are going to have to sell off / dump assets to maintain the ridiculous losses OpenAI is seeing, and any holdings not performing well will likely be the first to go / get dropped. (Remember that the average age of the first three of these groups is 15 years, and they are [becoming] modern SaaS/AI heavy, whereas Softbank Capital has been investing for 30 years, and is a lot more diversified. Softbank may be able to weather a complete crash in OpenAI valuation if it occurs. But these other firms may not!)

But, as we noted, the real warning is not for SoftBank or these other mega funds (in the significant 8 and 9 digit range) that have funds to weather a storm. It is for the smaller funds, especially those less than 1 Billion, that are too AI heavy.

As a result, when selecting any FinTech platform, you need look at the portfolio of any investment player with a substantial majority stake. If a large segment of the portfolio of a significant/majority investor is “AI” companies losing money hand over fist, then the vendor of that FinTech platform cannot be considered a stable vendor if it is not profitable. This is because you can’t count on the fund having the resources to support the vendor to profitability, even if vendor is a fund darling. This is the case even if the RCD calculation looks good! A lot of the smaller funds can’t afford an AI crash given the AI-heavy focus of their SaaS portfolio.

(Face it. An AI crash is coming. Too much valuation against too little return, and investors only have so much patience. The only thing we don’t know is how severe the crash is going to end up being. Is it going to be a minor drop across the tech markets or a major crash like the 2008 housing crash or the 1999/2000 dot com crash?)