Category Archives: Best Practices

The Six Strategic Sourcing Samurai

In our last post, we made the bold statement that it’s not optimization, it’s strategic sourcing and the even bolder statement that SI believes it has become practically impossible to do true strategic sourcing without optimization.

This is probably scary for those of you that are looking for a strategic sourcing solution and just figured out that, if the doctor is right*, then most of the organizations on your RFX list are not going to make the cut because while there are dozens of Sourcing platforms on the market, there are only six (6) that have true strategic sourcing decision optimization that implement all four (4) pillars defined in the classic wiki-paper that formally defined strategic sourcing decision optimization (SSDO).

So who are these six strategic sourcing samurai? They are the six remaining companies that took the time and effort to not only research and build a solution, but take it to market and wait while the market caught up with the vision that a few pioneers had fifteen years ago — a vision of true best-cost global sourcing from a total cost of ownership (and, more recently, from a total value management) perspective.

They are:

  • BravoSolution (acquired VerticalNet, which acquired Tigris)
  • Determine (formerly Selectica, which acquired Iasta)
  • IBM (acquired Emptoris, which acquired MindFlow)
  • Keelvar
  • SciQuest (which acquired CombineNet)
  • Trade Extensions

It’s not a long list, but it’s an important list. Furthermore, one can be sure that there will be more companies to add to the list in a couple of years, especially since there are a number of advanced solvers out there — such as CPLEX, Gurobi, XPress, etc. — to build solutions on; a number of 3PLs — such as APL, Schneider, etc. — that have very advanced logistics optimization solutions; and a few companies — such as LLamasoft, Oracle, etc. — that have very advanced Supply Chain (Network) Optimization solutions (which is not the same as SSDO). Optimization is spreading, and as more companies realize its power, it will continue to spread. However, now that the early adopters have proven the power of decision optimization, the question is, are you going to be a leader, and one of the first to capitalize on it, or a laggard, and watch as your competition moves faster, captures more market share, and generates a greater year-over-year profit based on the advanced cost reduction and cost control methodologies that optimization provides?

As for those of you that already have a previous generation sourcing solution and, for one reason or another, are locked in to it, don’t fret. A few of these vendors are quite happy to license their software as a secondary solution because, even though optimization should be used in every event, the reality is that, if the category has been well studied, the cost model is relatively simple, or the product is going out for an all-inclusive bid, the additional savings that optimization is likely to find is small and those categories can continue to go through the current platform. By cherry picking the categories with the largest (un-managed spend) and which appear to have the largest opportunities, and simply conducting those through the secondary optimization platform (and then pushing the bids and awards back into the primary platform to maintain a single database of bid and award data), it’s likely that the organization can easily identify 80%+ of all of the additional savings opportunities identifiable through optimization for a small additional investment. It’s whatever works. If the organization can get by on one platform, great, but if it can’t, or feels it can extract more value from two platforms, that’s fine too. Strategic Sourcing is for everyone, and that’s why the leading optimization vendors are quite happy to work with everyone who’s ready.

* the doctor is right. The real question is, when will your organization be ready to accept it? If your organization has not yet reached a level of sourcing maturity that, at the very least, puts it in the Hackett Group top 8%, it may not be far enough along it’s sourcing journey to truly understand why optimization is a necessary for strategic sourcing in the latter half of this decade.

It’s Not Optimization. It’s Strategic Sourcing.

Last week in my post on how The Trade Extensions Event Was Different. Their View is Different. It’s Time for Different I noted that the reason the event was different is because, unlike most purveyors of perplexing optimization software, they did not focus on their the capability, uniqueness, and savings potential of their optimization software, choosing to barely acknowledge the concept, and instead took the viewpoint that it’s not optimization, it’s just sourcing.

And as I indicated in that post, said in Monday’s Post on how It’s NOT a Suite, It’s JUST Sourcing Part II, SI has a very similar view. SI is now convinced that it’s not optimization, it’s strategic sourcing as SI believes it has become practically impossible to do true strategic sourcing without optimization.

Why? Because we have not only reached the point where it is impossible to define a sourcing event of any magnitude without hitting at least a few of the nine dimensions of complexity (outlined in “what defines complex sourcing and why does it matter” on Spend Matters) but we have also reached the point where the data collection, manipulation, and analysis requirements are so intensive that only a sourcing solution built on, and backed by, a true optimization engine is going to be able to handle the data, manipulation, and analysis required.

Now, we’re not saying that the right strategy for every event is optimization, but we are saying, as per SI’s already classic paper on Optimization, What Comes Next, that you cannot determine the right strategy without optimization to at least build and solve a baseline cost model given current market prices and expected bidder increases or decreases from the last event. For example, while a 3% savings potential might be enough for a (strategic) sourcing auction or optimization-based multi-round RFX, a 3% drop in expected product cost does not necessarily imply a 3% savings potential. If that drop is from remote suppliers that ship down lanes where costs have risen 10% and shipping is 30% of the overall total cost model, there is no savings potential. The right strategy is a renegotiation with the incumbent for a contract extension or a spot market buy. Similarly a 2% drop in price combined with a 5% drop in logistics costs could equate to a 3.5% savings potential under the right circumstances, which is substantial on a 50M+ category.

Plus, with bundled discounts, volume discounts from suppliers and carriers that take effect at different price points, different import and utilization costs for each supplier, and an ever increasing plethora of capacity constraints, mandatory award splits to minimize risk, secondary goals of minimal environmental impact, and so on, it’s often impossible to determine what the lowest cost solution is and, thus, if the cost increase associated with assigning a (greater percentage of the) award to a preferred supplier seen as being more valuable in the long term is actually worth it.

There’s just no way to do a strategic analysis and justify a strategic decision without a basic level of true mathematical optimization capability. Spreadsheets were breaking under the strain of basic sourcing requirements years ago. Now these sheets are just shards of glass — which will eventually cut you if repeatedly handled.

So if you want to source, use what you want. But if you want to strategically source, use an optimization-backed sourcing solution. You won’t need optimization for every event, but since you won’t know when you’ll need it until you have it, you still need it.

It’s NOT a Suite, It’s JUST Sourcing, Part II

In our last post we made the rather bold claim, which is probably going to irk a lot of vendors, that it’s NOT a Suite, It’s JUST Sourcing. SI likes vendors that are trying to build solutions to solve their customers’ pain points, and has chronicled the efforts of many over the years, and isn’t doing this to be irksome. SI is doing this because it’s not 2005 anymore, it’s 2015 and the nature of, and need for, Sourcing has changed. Today, Sourcing absolutely has to be more strategic and Suite Sourcing is NOT Strategic Sourcing. In today’s post, we’re going to begin to clarify why.

Then, also in our last post we outlined a hypothetical, but realistic, example in the high-tech space, discussing a typical, primary, sourcing event for a company that assembled custom-built high-end workstations for software developers and engineers. We started by discussing the primary factors that the Sourcing analyst was likely to identify as well as two strategies the analyst was likely to take. This led to a perceived event progression and a plan that looked like it was easily executable in you average modular sourcing suite. We did this to make it clear why many companies fall for the falacy that you can attack sourcing in a step-wise fashion using a modular suite, and, as a result, why some vendors still believe that a modular suite is the way to go. The reality is that, at a quick glancce, it does look like this is the right approach and that there is no reason to question it — even though there is a big reason. Namely, this approach is wrong.

The reason being is that, in reality, the event is not going to go as planned.

Specifically, it will not be an analysis followed by an RFP followed by a single auction / optimization analysis followed by a push into the contract management system. One or more, with emphasis on the more, of the following will happen:

  • the RFX will come back and some of the requested bid fields will be empty because the supplier is no longer producing the product
  • the RFX will come back and there will be new products that the buyer did not know about with new bids (and new interdependencceis to be mapped)
  • the logistics carriers will come back with quotes much higher than expected and/or a logistics carrier or 3PL will withdraw (due to overcommitments) and lanes will vanish
  • stakeholders or key customers will change requirements post RFX issue and you will have to go back and ask for prices on next gen products, which might still be in final design stages
  • the baseline optimization will come back with completely unexpected results and once the analyst uses spend analysis to dive in, will find a number of outliers in the incumbent bid and realize that she has to go back and ask for verified or corrected data
  • the auction will end with three suppliers almost equal on baseline scoring and extensive analysis will be needed to determine which supplier gets 50%, which supplier gets 30%, and which supplier gets 20% in the 50/30/20 split dictated by the shareholders to minimize risk

In these situations, respectively

  • the analyst will have to identify a larger supply base and send the RFX to more suppliers
  • the analyst will have to research the new products and decide whether to accept them or not and then, possibly, ask the supply base to bid on (comparable) products in a revised RFX
  • the analyst will have to invite more carriers to bid and consider alternate lanes, possibly from secondary (air)ports to secondary (air)ports
  • the analyst will have to create revised specs and go back to the supply base for additional prices and options
  • the analyst will have to backtrack to the spend analysis step on the submitted data, followed by a request for bid verification and a repeat of the optimization on revised data
  • the analyst will have to go back to the analysis step to identify which bid components were strongest for each supplier and then compare that to existing supplier scorecards (to determine likelihood of on-time delivery, quality guarantees, price consistency, etc.)

In other words, the event is not going to go as planned and it’s not going to be a sequential progression from analysis to RFX to auction/optimization to award. Moreover, most events are going to see multiple occurences of the above hiccups and require an almost random workflow that uses all of the sourcing capabilities of a suite multiple times.

Moreover, the transitions back and forth will need to be seamless. If an analyst has to push data out of the optimization “module” into the “analysis” module for detailed data and outlier analysis, than push the data, with insights, back into the “RFX” module for revised RFX data collection, and than push the revised RFP data back into the “Optimization” module for revised analysis only to find out that the lane cost is coming out higher than expected in the preferred award, indicating that there is still an additional opportnity if logistics costs can be lowered, then this “modular” workflow quickly becomes a nightmare.

Plus, in this situation, the analyst will have to do an in-depth analysis of the logistics cost to determine if costs can be lowered simply by inviting more carriers to bid, analyzing primary and secondary lanes, or doing something progressive like using the organization’s sourcing expertise to help a provider lower their overhead with better insurance rates, communication plans, and office & computer supplies from the organization’s GPO contract. Then, after this analysis has been done, which will likely take the form of multiple what-if optimizations using various cost models, the analyst will have to go back to the RFP, issue the revised RFP with more options to current and new suppliers, push the data back into the optimization module and continue.

In a modern Sourcing project, one cannot separate data collection from cost modeling from analysis from bidding from optimization — it is all one integrated sourcing process that lathers, rinses, and repeats until the solution is found and the event is done. And any provider that thinks you can separate pieces out and take a modular, piecemeal approach and build up to a suite is still living in 2005 and should be approached with caution. It’s not a suite, it’s just Sourcing. And, as indicated in our previous post, and as will be discussed in more detail in a future post, it’s not optimization, it’s strategic sourcing.

It’s NOT a Suite, It’s JUST Sourcing, Part I

In Wednesday’s post, we made what some might consider the rather bold statement that it’s not optimization, it’s strategic sourcing and we will get back to this statement shortly, but first we’re going to step back and make a statement that some may feel is an even stronger claim. It is certainly a statement that is going to irk a number of vendors, but we’re not in 2005 anymore. We’re in 2015 and the market, and the game, has changed.

Thus, It’s not a suite, it’s just Sourcing.

What do we mean by this? Simple. These days, Sourcing needs to be much more strategic and is thus not an activity that can be accomplished as a descrete set of loosely connected tasks where you can pick and choose what you need ahead of time. Strategic Sourcing is an activity that needs to both analyze the need and the market situation and respond to the stimuli the market is providing in a dynamic fashion.

This can not be done according to a pre-planned, limited set of tasks. To clarify, let’s take a hypothetical, but realisitic situation. Let’s say that the company is a high-tech retailer selling custom assembled high-end development boxes to software development and engineering shops. This company will not be buying pre-configured Dell and HP machines, targetted to the consumer market, but custom configured boxes using high end motherboards, which may be manufactured by the same production houses that manufacture boards for companies like Dell and HP, high end Intel and AMD processors, ultra-fast high density DRAM, high-end Solid State drives, mid-tower cases with extra fans, etc.

This might sound like a relatively easy sourcing event as there are a relatively small number of acceptable MB manufacturers, DRAM manufacturers, drive manufacturers, case manufacturers, and only two chip manufacturers, but even 5 * 5 * 5 *5 * 2 = 1350 and each manufacturer might have over a dozen acceptable options — and it’s hard to say up front how many of these combinations are not only viable, but acceptable (as even though it might be feasible to connect the components, there might be driver or other issues that affect compatibility or performance). In addition, new manufacturers arise once in a while and old manufacturers fail or sell out. Last year’s customer spend pattern is not the same as the spend pattern two years ago, and until year-over-year is analyzed for multiple years, you have no idea of the average deviation.

In other words:

  • you may or may not need a pre-event spend analysis to determine potential volume leverage points, the opportunities with supply base consolidation, and expected savings potential, all depending on when the last event was run, how much data you have, and current market data points
  • you may or may not need optimization; if you restrict the bid to pre-configured systems, because business is up 40% and you need a quick event to get through the rest of the year with plans to do a more detailed analysis in 6 months, you can probably get away with a weighted auction, but if bid options are open, you will probably need optimization to handle all the data
  • you may or may not need multiple RFX rounds, so you may or may not need a supplier portal to handle the communication necessary for a multi-round event

And this is all fairly obvious, so you are probably thinking

  • if I need the analysis, I invoke the spend analysis module, get my insights, and plan my strategy
  • then I invoke the RFX module to create the RFX
  • if I am doing multiple rounds — I have to configure the Supplier Portal instead of just sending out the Excel spreadsheets (which I would import on return otherwise)
  • when the data is retrieved, validated and cleaned up then I either
    • push it into the auction for a weighted auction or
    • push it into the optimization module for optimization-backed analysis
  • when I have my winners, I push the data into the contract management module for draft contract creation

… easy-peasy, right?

Wrong!

This is the real world and it never works this way.

The Trade Extensions Event Was Different. Their View Is Different. It’s time for Different.

In our last post we noted that those of you following Spend Matters and Spend Matters EU will have noticed Nancy’s and Jason’s posts on the recent Trade Extensions events in London and Chicago on Managing Complexity. In these posts they made a number of interesting observations about the event and how it was different from many other customer-focussed vendor events. We summarized these in our last post and noted that while all of the differences identified were major differences between the Trade Extensions event and the average vendor event, the biggest difference was left unsaid.

The biggest difference was not in the event, or even in the unique approach Trade Extensions took in the planning and organization of the event, but in the viewpoint they took with regards to the core subject matter. The viewpoint, which is one that Sourcing Innovation has had for a long time, is simply thus:

It’s not optimization. It’s just sourcing.

It’s 2015. As indicated in a recent white paper by Mr. Smith of Spend Matters UK on “What Defines Complex Sourcing”, Sourcing is Complex. In fact, as will be clarified in Sourcing Innovation’s upcoming paper on Complex Sourcing: Are You Ready, even the most basic of categories these days hide complexity well beyond an average Sourcing Professional’s wildest imagination. In fact, even a basic print tender can hide all nine dimensions of complexity and finding the right solution is in fact a sourcing problem of the highest magnitude. (The reality is that sourcing custom made controller boards is often easier.)

Sourcing involves identifying the plethora of options available, defining the cost model breakdowns, capturing all of the data, allowing suppliers to define their own proposals, capturing all of the buyer constraints and capacity restrictions, and creating various scenarios that represent different workable options. All of this requires an optimization platform.

The reality is that strategic sourcing requires a lot of analysis, and the only sourcing platform that can support the analysis required is one based on optimization. But it’s not necessarily about the optimization. Sometimes it’s about the requirements capture. Sometimes it’s about the data collection. Sometimes its about the modelling. Sometimes its just creating and costing scenarios. And sometimes, which could be a small fraction of the time, it’s about the optimization.

It’s not optimization, it’s strategic sourcing. You can’t do sourcing without optimization, even though you can do optimization without sourcing. That’s why the Trade Extensions event focussed on Sourcing. Whether or not the end of Procurement is nigh. How to effect change to keep it relevant. How to source responsibly. And what some best practices to achieve that goal are. If you can not strategically source, you cannot optimize. Don’t try to preach optimization before one understands the importance of true and proper strategic sourcing.

That’s also why Trade Extensions commissioned a book, The Strategic Sourcing Lifecycle: An Introduction, written by the doctor, which they will be giving away FREE as an e-Book download through their TESS Academy. (Stay tuned for more information on when this will be available.) It’s not optimization, it’s sourcing. And we’ve reached a point where most firms that claim to have Sourcing don’t.