Author Archives: thedoctor

Sustainability ONLY Exists In the Supply Chain

Furthermore, simply switching suppliers does not make you more sustainable no matter what you may think or what those overpriced third party ESG / Scope 3 reports may (or may not) say. Switching suppliers to a supplier approximated to be more sustainable is not increasing sustainability, because if you take someone else’s supplier, then they are just going to end up with yours. It may be a temporary net win for your company, but it’s a net loss for another company, and that doesn’t really help anyone as sustainability was not actually increased overall.

Sustainability only comes from net improvement. The reason it only comes from the supply chain is because the products you buy come from the supply chain. The energy you use comes from the supply chain. The water you use (and drink) comes from the supply chain. The services come from your partners (in the supply chain). The transport to you (and/or to your customers) is the supply chain. Everything comes from the supply chain. The only way you can increase your sustainability is to reduce the energy, water, and products you use and the travel you undertake. For most companies, this is a negligible part of the supply chain … sometimes so negligible it rounds to zero.

So how do you increase sustainability in your supply chain? You start by helping your suppliers be more sustainable, which, believe it or not, starts with you being a better buyer and a better partner. Sustainability requires investment, and when they are operating at slimmer margins than you, significantly smaller bank accounts than you, and a lot more uncertainty than you, it can be hard for them to invest in new technology or processes when they don’t even know if they can invest in next week’s payroll.

And it requires more than a piece of paper from you saying you’re going to award them two years of business after a multi-round RFP when you’re a first time buyer. Because they know that while you may have the wherewithal to enforce a contract in another country half a world away, they often don’t. And they know how many times they’ve been screwed in the past when they were told they’d get 100,000 units, but COVID hit, the market crashed, or the transport lanes (ports, borders, etc.) closed down and the orders never came.

You need to develop a true partnership, work with them, build up shared trust and commitment, stick to your promises, help them with their processes so they become more efficient, identify efforts they can make to significantly increase sustainability, and then make the long term commitment they need from you (and other major customers) to invest in better technology, build their own renewable energy grids, etc.

Why are we bringing this up? Because a recent article in VOGUE Business that asked if fashion’s buying practices are really improving had a very good point. While fashion brands make strong claims they are investing in longer-term strategic partnerships, and big consultancies like McKinsey quote impressive statistics (such as an increase from 26% to 43% over the last 4 years) on how the percentage of CPOs reporting longer-term strategic partnerships (which just translates into longer term contracts, but not necessarily guaranteed awards over the long term, as there are usually so many out clauses the contracts mean nothing), the reality is that when you ask the suppliers how things are going, it’s a completely different story. As the Vogue Business article point out, this year’s Better Buying Partnership Index saw just a one point increase in the garment industry’s buyer-supplier partnerships score. Just one point! That could be a rounding error.

Despite all the lip service, there has been no improvement in the fashion supply chain because, at the end of the day, as Lindsay Wright was quoted, simply claiming you have good partnerships with your suppliers isn’t going to cut it. If you want an honest picture of what’s really happening on the ground, you need to be asking suppliers, because they’re the only real arbiters of whether purchasing practices are improving.

And this holds true across supply chains. Partner with your suppliers on long term contracts and work on development initiatives with them if you want to increase sustainability. Otherwise, the best thing you can do is to just shut the f*ck up because you’re only contributing to the hot air.

Supply Chain Certifications Lost Value Quite a While Ago …

… and they won’t ever reclaim any value until they start offering training on digitally friendly processes and the core of modern digital technology. That’s why it was no surprise to the doctor to see this recent article over on the Acceleration Economy that noted that Supply Chain Certifications Lose Value as Product Expertise Gains Traction.

He was surprised to hear that the research foundation found that a whopping 18% of certifications issued through career and tech education programs are sought by employers. As someone with a background in tech, he can honestly say that he’s never worked for, or with, any employer that actually valued a tech certification because they were outdated before they were issued — the leading tech employers valued good education and experience that provided a candidate with the ability to learn and adapt on the job. Which, by the way, is exactly what a Procurement professional has to do.

As the article notes, since the machine has taken over the task of doing the calculations — computing the inventory, creating demand plans, and analyzing lead times — we don’t need in depth courses on how to do this manually, we need certifications in whatever technologies our companies have chosen to use so we can take the utmost advantage of that technology, or at least a certification that covers the basics across all technologies of that type.

But even though it’s now the mid-2020s, we still don’t have any certifications that even cover the basics of the tech that hit the scene across Source-to-Pay in the mid 2000s. After all, the basics they convey haven’t change either. So, as some have noted, while they are a decent starting point for someone just getting into Procurement, it won’t get them very far. And they certainly don’t add any value to anyone with more than 3 years of experience.

Hopefully this will change, because it would be nice if Procurement professionals had a certification option that would allow them the opportunity for a lifetime of learning, vs. checking the box for a certification where they know more than the teacher.

Coupa: Comprehensive Optimization Underlies Procurement Assurance: Coupa Supply Chain Solutions

We’ve never covered Coupa Supply Chain Solutions (for Design and Planning), formerly known as Llamasoft, here on Sourcing Innovation, but the doctor did contribute to some of the coverage over on Spend Matters, including the acquisition coverage (Functional Overview, Overlap Between Direct Procurement and Supply Chain, and Procurement, Finance, and Supply Chain Use Cases [Content Hub Subscription Required]) in 2020. Llamasoft / Coupa Supply Chain Design and Planning has also been more recently covered by Spend Matters’ Pierre Mitchell as part of his analysis of Coupa for Supply Chain Management overall. For those interested with a ContentHub subscription, see his pieces on Can Coupa manage supply as well as spend?, Coupa’s journey from Business Spend Management to Supply Chain Management: Assessing progress on seven key dimensions, and From Spend to Supply — Coupa’s direct spend management progress.

Coupa Supply Chain Solutions consists of four main offerings:

  • Supply Chain Modeller: the core solution, that can be used offline on the desktop (Supply Chain Guru) as well as online in the cloud, where you build network, inventory, and transportation models for optimization and exploration through the dynamic reporting and dashboard creation module; note that the online version can process multiple “what-if” optimization models simultaneously
  • Supply Chain App Studio: the online solution which allows users to build custom interfaces to the underlying model that can be, if desired, custom designed for different user types (procurement, logistics, demand planners, etc.) and then shared with those users who can use the app for regular analysis and what-if optimization
  • Demand Modeller: for demand modelling and forecasting — not covered in this article
  • Supply Chain Prescriptions: uses machine learning and AI to identify savings opportunities from changes to transportation and inventory models, as well as to identify risk mitigation scenarios, based upon the current supply chain design

In this article we are going to primarily cover the capabilities of the Modeller / App Studio and the Prescriptions which is the core of their supply chain (design and planning) solution suite.

The Modeller has three primary components:

  • Model : where you build the models
  • Explore : where you build what-if scenarios, that are then optimized
  • Results : the outputs of the what-if scenarios

Model building is quite easy. It’s simply a matter of selecting, or uploading, a set of data tables for each relevant supply chain entity. They can be pulled in from a relational database or from a CSV file in standard row-based column format. As long as the column headers have standard field names, the SCP solution can auto detect what entity the table represents (warehouse, lane, transportation mode, etc.) and what data is provided on the entity. It understands all the common elements of supply chain modelling, common names and representations, and appropriate business rules that can do all of the auto mappings.

When you pull in a table, and it does the mappings to the standard internal models, it also automatically analyzes and validates the data. It makes sure all entries are unique, key values required for the types of analysis supported are there (such as coordinates for warehouses, costs per distance for transportation modes, stock levels and associated product requirements for inventory), etc. and flags any conflicting, missing, or likely erroneous data for user review and correction.

When you go to build a scenario, it understands what is required in the base underlying model and validates that all of the necessary data is present. If data is missing, it warns you and gives you a chance to provide the missing data. (Furthermore, as you add constraints to the scenario, the platform understands the data is required and ensures that data is present as well before it tries to run the scenario.)

The application was designed for ease of use and speed, tailored for automating most of the model building process for standard network/inventory/transportation scenarios (including setting parameters and defaults) so that standard models can be built for analysis quick and easy (and it is also quick and easy to change or override any default as needed).

Explore provides the capability where you build scenarios for what-if? exploration.

Building scenarios is simple. You simply select the scenario requirements, or constraints, from a set of existing, or newly created, scenario items that define the parameters of the scenario. For example, for a network optimization, you might want to explore limiting the number of existing distribution hubs or adding more proposed nodes to see if you can reduce cost, carbon, or distribution time. For transportation, you might want to explore adding in rail to a network that is currently all truck to see if you can decrease cost. For inventory, you might want to reduce the number of locations where safety stock for rarely used components is stored (so you can limit the number of locations with a low turn rate and minimize the warehouse size/footprint you need at those locations) and see what happens and so on. Each scenario is built from a set of specifications that specify the restrictions that you want to enforce, which could even be a reduction in the current number of restrictions. These restrictions can be on any entity, or relationship. One can also create scenarios to explore how the network will change under different circumstances, such as demand change, cost change, or disruption. Selecting is a simple point-and-click or drag and drop exercise.

Once you’ve created the scenario(s) of interest (remembering that you can optimize multiple simultaneously in the online version), you launch them by selecting the type of optimization (the “technology”), the sub-type of optimization (the “problem type”), the horizon (the timeframe you want to analyze), and, optionally, override default parameters (if you don’t want to do a cost optimization but instead want to optimize carbon, service level, fulfillment time, risk, etc.). Then you run the scenario, and once the optimization engine works its math, you can explore the results.

The Model supports:

  • Network Optimization
    • Standard Network Optimization
    • … with Network Decomposition
    • … with Infeasibility Diagnosis
    • Greenfield Analysis
    • Cost-to-Serve Analysis
  • Inventory Optimization
    • Safety Stock
    • Safety Stock & Service Level
    • Safety Stock & Rolling Horizon
    • Safety Stock Infeasibility
    • Service Level
    • Rolling Horizon
    • Rolling Horizon Validation
    • Demand
  • Transportation Optimization
    • Transportation – Standard
    • Transportation – Interleaved
    • Transportation – Hub
    • Transportation – Periodic
    • Transportation – Backhaul
    • Transportation – Backhaul Matching
    • Driver Scheduling

In short, it’s a very extensive network, inventory, and transportation optimization modelling solution out of the box that makes it really easy for supply chain and procurement analysts to build scenarios and solve them against all of the traditional models (and variants) they would want to run. (And if your particular variant isn’t out of the box, the SCP team can code and add the variant into your deployment as the underlying solution was built to allow for as many models as was needed as well as unlimited scenarios on those models.) Note that, by default, the platform will always run the baseline scenario so you have a basis for comparison.

Results, which are output in the form of results tables, can then be analyzed in table form (by selecting the output table), graph form (by accessing the graphs), map mode (by accessing the map), or as a built-in or custom report/dashboards that the analyst can create as needed. For every type of analysis in the system, SCP includes a default set of dashboards for exploring the data set, which adapt to not only the type and subtype of optimization that was run, but the goal (objective function) as well. So if you did a cost optimization scenario, they summarize the costs. If you did a carbon optimization scenario, they summarize the carbon. If you did a service level optimization, they summarize the service level. If you did a carbon optimization relative to a maximum cost increase, they summarize the carbon and cost (and the relationship). In their platform, if you optimize one element or KPI, you can see the impact on all of the other costs and KPIs as all of the associated data is also output for analysis.

There is an output table for all elements which can be analyzed in detail, but most users prefer graph or map view on the relevant data.

Views provide custom, tabular, reports on the relevant fields of one or more tables, which can be exported to csv or pushed to another application for planning purposes. For example, if the model was a network optimization model, you can create a view that outputs the new distribution centres and fulfilment lanes for the revised network and push that to the TMS (Transportation Management System). If it was a transportation optimization model, you can output a table that specifies the carrier and rate for each lane, or, if necessary, each lane product combination and push that into the TMS. If it was a safety stock optimization model, you can output the product, location, minimum stock levels, and reorder points and push that into the Inventory Management or ERP system. And so on. There are default views for cost, carbon, service level, demand, and inventory optimizations, along with drill ins for relevant types of cost (site, production, by transportation type, etc.), but it is quite easy for a user to create a view on any table, or set of tables, with derived fields, with the view editor.

Graphs summarize the data in tables or views graphically, allowing for easy visual comparison. Select the scenario, select the data, select the graph type, and there’s your graph. They are most useful as components in dashboard summaries.

Maps provide a visual representation of the supply chain network — warehouses/distribution centers, customer locations, transportation lanes — overlaid on a real-world map with the ability to filter into particular supply chain network elements. There is a default map for the full network overview, and it can be copied and edited to just display certain elements.

Dashboards group relevant elements, such as a map of the current distribution network, a map of the optimized distribution network, a graphic summary of current distribution costs, a graphic summary of new distribution costs, and tabular (view-based) cost, carbon, and service level comparisons as the result of a supply chain network optimization scenario. These are typically custom built by the analyst to what is relevant to them.

Prescriptions, only in the online version of Supply Chain Modeller, are based on the 22 years of experience the SCP team has in building and analyzing models and uses advanced ML, simulation, and AI to automatically identify potential cost savings, and risk reductions and presents rank-ordered opportunities for you in each category, which you can drill into and explore. This solution automatically generates dozens (upon dozens) of scenarios and performs hundreds (or thousands) of analyses to automatically bring you actionable insights that you can implement TODAY to improve your network.

These savings will be grouped by type for easy exploration. For example, when it comes to cost savings, these will often be obtained by node skipping, mode switching, or volume consolidation — and the prescriptions module will summarize the prescriptions in each category, as well as summarizing the relative total savings of each category. A user can accept or reject each (sub) set of prescriptions, and then export all of the accepted prescriptions into new route definition records that can be imported into the TMS.

Note that the analysis that underlies the prescription analysis is very detailed, and in addition to the prescriptions, the platform will also identify the top network factors that are impacting the transportation costs, such as fleet distance, unique modes, certain carriers, country, etc.

When a user drills in, she sees the complete details of the prescription, including the before and after. In the node skipping example, they will see the current distance, products, quantities, (total) weight and volume, and current rates and then will see these in comparison to the new distance, new rates, and new costs. The old and new routes will be mapped side by side. The old and new lanes will be detailed.

The out of the box network risk summary for revenue at risk is quite impressive. The platform is able to compute the overall network revenue AND network profit at risk based on single sourced site-products, % of flow quantity single sourced, avg. end-to-end service times, and impacted paths. It will then do analyses to identify potential risk mitigation improvements allowing for 5%, 10%, and 15% network change (based on how product flows through the network with the current design) and compute the corresponding change in revenue and profit at risk as a result of those changes as well as the change in network cost. Usually the cost will increase slightly, but not always. For example, it could be that you could reduce the revenue at risk by 5% just through a supplier reallocation and network redesign, and if you were really risk averse, it could be that a 1% increase in network cost could result in an 8% to 10% decrease in revenue, and profit, at risk. And that could be the cheapest supply chain insurance you can buy.

Of course, you can drill into each model, the prescriptions, and the risk reduction with each individual change. It’s an extremely powerful tool.

Another thing that is really powerful in Coupa Supply Chain Solutions is the specific applications they can enable in the online App Studio, including the Cost-to-Serve App (which is just one example of the custom interfaces that can be built) that is one of the most complete dynamic dashboards for network insights that the doctor has ever seen. A summary can’t do it justice, but to whet your appetite to be sure you ask to see it in a demo, it has a full set of meaningful baseline KPIs, a visual network and flow summary, deep details on product costs and profitability, deep details on lanes and transportation costs, and so on. You can also quick-select a scenario to run and compare against the baseline in the app. It’s extremely well thought out.

Furthermore, you can build scripts in the App Studio to rebuild and run models on a schedule when you have a network in flux (because of disruptions, supply base changes, network changes as a result of prescriptions, etc.). And, of course, you can share these models and apps and dashboards with other analysts and democratize supply chain planning, easily enabling planners to analyze their own scenarios and make decisions collaboratively in a user-friendly App.

In short, Coupa has fulfilled the supply chain use cases we identified back in 2020 in Procurement, Finance, and Supply Chain Use Cases. It’s a great solution that you should check out, especially if you would like to have procurement and supply chain under one umbrella.

Will AI Make Us Irrelevant?

Short Answer: No. But Improper Use Will Make Us “Redundant.

James Meads asks “Will AI in Procurement make us all irrelevant?”

So I will answer. No, it won’t! But it will make those companies who dive off the deep-end on Gen-AI irrelevant as their supply chains crumble with no real human intelligence there to save them when the next crisis hits. (See the myriad of rants here on Sourcing Innovation on just how over-hyped Open Gen-AI technology is and what you actually need to solve your problems.) Also, if we’re lucky, they will take a few providers with no actual platform capability (or Procurement value) down with them. (We need them to get out of the way for those platforms that have been offering real, deterministic, math-based, tried-and-true analytics, optimization, and machine learning solutions [for up to two decades] as there are many companies that need those solutions today.)

While custom-trained closed LLMs can seemingly do a lot of the work for us, they are NOT intelligent, they don’t know good from bad, they don’t know right from wrong, and they definitely don’t know critical from irrelevant. Thus, even though they can put together an NDA or RFP in seconds, it doesn’t mean it’s “fully functional”, that it protects you from all the risks, or that it captures all your requirements. Only an expert human can verify that. [And it doesn’t matter how good your “prompting” is. It can still fail, with a reasonably high probability to boot! (Which is what you can give it!) There’s a reason that Tonkean, an intake automation/enterprise orchestration solution provider, ALWAYS does pre-validation on inputs and-post validation on outputs before showing you anything when it incorporates your LLM technology, because they know just how often it fails and if the response doesn’t closely resemble something expected with very high probability, they won’t even show it to you.]

“AI”, or, more accurately, rules-based automation, will replace humans who are just doing tactical data processing, but it cannot replace humans who can do real strategic analysis, interpretation, and problem solving. Unfortunately for Procurement, given that 80%+ of the time is tactical data processing and fire-fighting, this will cause companies to think they can eliminate 80% of the Procurement team, even though the reality is that the Procurement team isn’t even addressing 20% of spend strategically in any given year, meaning that they should be augmenting the Procurement team with every useful technology they can find to try and get that spend coverage above 80%!

And if you want to know what companies are truly offering valuable “AI” (where the best you will get is Augmented Intelligence, level 2 on the 4 tier scale, as there is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence and many companies still don’t even offer Assisted Intelligence, level 1, and instead disguise their Artificial Idiocy in slick marketing), talk to an analyst who CAN do the math AND the programming.

First published on LinkedIn.

Even Forbes is Falling for the the Gen-AI Garbage!

This recent article in Forbes on the Supply Chain Shift to Intelligent Technology is what inspired last week’s and this week’s rant because, while supply chains should be shifting to intelligent technology, the situations in which that is Gen-AI are still extremely rare (to the point that a blue moon is much more common). But what really got the doctor‘s goat is the ridiculous claims as to what Gen-AI can do. Claims with are simultaneously maddening and saddening because, if they just left out Gen-AI, then everything they claimed is not only doable, but doable with fantastic results.

Of the first three claims, Gen-AI can only be used to solve one — and only partially.

Procurement and Regulatory Compliance
This is one example where a Closed Private Gen-AI LLM is half the battle — it can process, summarize, and highlight key areas of hundred page texts faster and better than prior NLP tech. But it can’t tell you if your current contracts, processes, efforts, or plans will meet the requirements. Not even close. In fact, no AI can — the best AI can just indicate the presence or absence of data, processes, or tech that are most likely to be relevant and then an intelligent human needs to make the decision, possibly only after obtaining appropriate expert Legal advice.
Manufacturing Efficiency
streamline production workflows? optimize processes? reduce errors? No, Hell No, and even the Joker wouldn’t make that joke! You want streamlining? You first have to do a deep process cycle time analysis, compare it to whatever benchmarks you can get, identify the inefficiencies, identify potential processes and tech for improvement, and implement them. Optimize processes? Detailed step by step analysis, identification of opportunities, expert process redesign, training, implementation, and monitoring. Reduce errors? No! People and tech do the processes, not Gen-AI — implement better monitoring, rules, and safeguards.
Virtual Supply Collaboration
A super-charged chatbot on steroids is NOT a virtual assistant. Now, properly sandwiched between classical AI and rules-based intelligence it can deal with 80% of routine inquiries, but not on its own, and it’s arguable if it’s even worth it when a well designed app can get the user to the info they need 10 times faster with just a couple of clicks. Supply chain communicating? People HATE getting a “robot” on a support line as much as you do, to the point some of us start screaming profanities at it if we don’t get a real operator within 10 seconds. Based on this, do you really think your supplier wants to talk to a dumb bot that has NO authority to make a decision (or, at least, should NEVER have the authority — though the doctor is sure someone’s going to be dumb enough to give the bot the authority … let’s just hope they can live with the inevitable consequences)?

And maybe if the article had stopped there the doctor would let it pass, but
first of all, it went on to state the following for “AI”, without clarifying that Gen-AI doesn’t fit in the process, leading us to conclude that, since the first part of the article is about Gen-AI, this part is too, and thus is totally wrong when it claims that:

“AI” understands dirty data
with about 70% accuracy where it counts IF you’re lucky; that’s about how accurate it is at identifying a supplier from your ERP/AP transaction records; an admin assistant will get about 98% accuracy by comparison
it can “confirm” inventories
all it can do is regurgitate what’s in the inventory system — that’s not confirmation!
it can identify duplicate materials
first it has to identify two records that are actually duplicates;
and how likely do you think this is with a supplier mapping accuracy of 70%?
it can identify materials to be shared among facilities
well, okay, it can identify materials that are used across facilities and could be located in a central location — but how useful is that? it’s not because, first of all, YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS, and, second, IT CAN’T DO SUPPLY CHAIN OPTIMIZATION — THAT’S WHAT A SUPPLY CHAIN OPTIMIZATION SOLUTION IS FOR! OPTIMIZATION!!! We’ll break it down syllabically for you so you know what to ask for. OP – TUH – MY – ZAY – SHUN!
it can recommend ideal storage locations
again, NO! This requires solving a very sophisticated optimization model it doesn’t have the data for, doesn’t know how to build, and definitely doesn’t know how to solve.
it can revamp outdated stocking policies
well, only the solution of a proper Inventory OPTIMIZATION Model that identifies the appropriate locations and safety stock levels can identify how these should be revamped
it can recommend order patterns by consumption and lead time
that’s classical curve fitting and tend projection

And, secondly, as the doctor just explained, most of what they were saying AI could do CAN’T be done with AI, and instead can only be done with analytics, optimization, and advanced mathematical models! (You know, the advanced tech (that works) that you’ve been ignoring for over two decades!)

The Gen-AI garbage is getting out of control. It’s time to stop putting up with it and start pushing back against any provider who’s trying to sell you this miracle cure silicon snake oil and show them the door. There are real solutions that work, and have worked, for two decades that will revolutionize your supply chain. You don’t need false promises and tech that isn’t ready for prime time.

Somedays the doctor just wishes he was the Scarecrow. Only someone without a brain can deal with this constant level of Gen-AI bullsh!t and not be stressed about the deluge of misinformation being spread on a daily basis! But then again, without a brain, he might be fooled by the slick salespeople that Gen-AI could give him one, instead of remembering the wise words of the True Scarecrow.