Category Archives: Best Practices

Acquiring e-Sourcing and e-Procurement Technology: What Questions Should You Be Asking?

Join Sourcing Innovation and the doctor for the next NLPA Members-only webinar on Acquiring e-Sourcing and e-Procurement Technology; What Questions Should You Be Asking. Taking place next Wednesday, February 26, at 8:30 am Pacific, 11:30 am Eastern, and 16:30 pm GMT (London) time.

This webinar, which follows Novembers webinar on Making Sense of e- in Sourcing and Procurement, will outline the critical questions that must be asked when searching for an e-Sourcing or an e-Procurement solution.

In our last webinar, we clearly defined the sourcing and procurement cycle, indicated where each technology (e-Sourcing, e-Negotiation, e-Procurement, e-Invoicing, e-Auction, e-RFX, e-Contract, e-Payment, Procure-to-Pay, Source-to-Pay, etc.) fell, outlined what each technology did, and indicated the conditions that needed to exist for each solution to potentially be appropriate for your organization. This provided your organization with a set of questions it could ask to determine what technologies it needed to focus on as it looked to acquire new sourcing and procurement technologies to support it in its Supply Management Journey.

However, just knowing that your organization needs a solution is not enough, especially if its biggest need is a basic e-Negotiation suite that is theoretically available from over two dozen vendors. Which solution, or solutions, are right for your organization? Depending on the needs of the organization, it might be the case that only two out of twenty solutions will appropriately address the organizational needs, but unless the right questions are asked, it might look like six meet the needs and the organization will have a 66% chance of selecting the wrong solution.

That’s why the doctor of Sourcing Innovation is hosting this follow-up webinar on Acquiring e-Sourcing and e-Procurement Technology; What Questions Should You Be Asking. You’ll learn the critical questions that must be asked when searching for an e-Sourcing or an e-Procurement solution, some important questions that should also be considered for each major module, and how to structure a (multi-round) RFX for Success.

To register for this free event, login to the NLPA and navigate to the “Webinars” tab where you’ll find a registration link. Be sure to enter a valid email address as attendance details will be sent to you by email. Registration is free (as is basic NLPA membership) but attendance is limited, so sign up soon to ensure access to this event. (If you have forgotten your NLPA password, please visit the NLPA password reset page.)

See you next Wednesday, February 26, at 8:30 am Pacific, 11:30 am Eastern, and 16:30 pm GMT (London) time.

Supply Management Should Drive M&A Evaluations

But don’t look to e-Auctions to save the day. As per SI’s recent post, the entanglements of e-Auctions could get in the way.

Last fall, e-Sourcing Forum published a two-part series on M&A and e-Auctions, stating that what’s old may be new again, which claimed that e-Auctions could be a perfect tool for procurement in post M&A scenarios as they provide a competitive advantage for industries frequently involved in M&A activities. They can, if the situation is right, or they can be as useful as a trap door in a life-boat. There is no one-size fits all sourcing tool, and if you get it in your head to force-fit a sourcing tool to your situation, e-Auctions should be on the bottom of your list because they can bust as bad as they boom.

The rationale presented for their selection as the potential perfect e-Sourcing tool in the post-merger environment is based on the fact that e-Auctions can:

  • put negotiations directly into the hands of the suppliers,
  • create fair competition between suppliers by creating a level playing field,
  • provide suppliers with more direct/immediate feedback on their position in the market, and
  • drive “truer” market pricing and justifications for establishing baselines post-merger.

This is all true provided that:

  • the majority of suppliers, including those that are currently preferred, are willing to negotiate through the auction,
  • the buyer designs the auction in a way that is fair to all suppliers,
  • the auction platform can support real-time feedback to all suppliers taking part in the auction, and
  • the suppliers don’t collude and don’t make unrealistic bids in an effort to win the auction, hoping to make up the unsustainable loss either in volume or add-on fees or future business.

In order for auctions to work, especially in a post-M&A scenario, a number of conditions need to hold true.

  • supply has to at least equal, and preferably exceed, demand as per our post on the entanglements of e-Auctions,
  • there has to be enough qualified suppliers to make the auction competitive — if only two suppliers can supply the custom product or service you need, the auction ain’t gonna do squat except offend suppliers who should be your strategic partners,
  • there has to be enough volume to make the event worthwhile — saving 1% on 100,000 is not going to be worth the time and effort, and, most importantly,
  • there has to be enough categories that meet these requirements that are available to source in the first year, as it will typically be the case that both companies have contracts in place for a large number of their high-spend or high-volume categories, and, furthermore,
  • these categories have to be significantly larger than they were before the merger — if the merger does not yield enough common categories that are available to source at volumes that are high enough to be more attractive to the supply base than each company would source on its own, then the merger / acquisition is not going to yield any sourcing quick wins by way of e-Auction.

If neither company has a lot of spend under contract, neither company has a large number of complex products or services that can only be sourced from one or two suppliers, and both companies source a large number of overlapping products and services, then, if the market is ripe, the supply base is willing, and the buying team can design and deliver a fair and professional e-Auction, then e-Auctions can drive M&A success. But if the opposite is true, all e-Auctions will do is get the M&A team into trouble.

As with every sourcing exercise, it must start with a situational, and spend, analysis to see what’s what.

The Entanglements of e-Auctions

Not too long ago, Procurement Leaders (PL) published a piece on “the pitfalls of procurement auctions” that did a good job of exposing some of the traps in Procurement Auctions. It is worth a read, but it missed a few entanglements that also need to be understood in order to determine when, where, and why an auction should, or should not, be used. In this post, after reviewing the traps of the PL piece, we will discuss some of those.

According to the piece, there are four main traps of Procurement Auctions:

  • lack of auction knowledge
    The author notes that many business have a pre-conceived notion of what an auction is, even though the concept is very broad and flexible and can be adapted to your business needs. Modern e-Auction platforms support upwards of ten types of auctions, many of which are described in the e-Auction WikiPaper the doctor co-authored years ago.
  • lack of an appropriate platform
    As a result of lack of knowledge, many Procurement teams will lock in with an e-Auction provider before understanding what they really need and settle on a platform that, while great, isn’t right for them.
  • lack of supplier interest
    Auctions don’t work unless you have enough suppliers who can meet your needs who are seriously interested in winning your business. This will generally only be the case only if there are multiple suppliers who can supply the good or service you need (that are not locked in non-compete agreements with your competition that would exclude you) that see your auction process as fair, transparent, and efficient.
  • lack of planning
    As noted above, there is no auction type or platform that is “one-size-fits-all” so you need to select an approach that is flexible and you need it to be repeatable when you need to run the auction on the category, or a similar category, again in the future.

These are big traps, but not the only ones. Four more traps include:

  • lack of market knowledge
    Auctions generally work well when supply exceeds demand and generally work poorly when demand exceeds supply. A buyer who runs an auction at the wrong time will generally not get good results.
  • lack of supply market knowledge
    Just because a supplier is interested in bidding doesn’t mean it should be allowed to bid. Only qualified suppliers that have been confirmed to have the necessary capabilities should be allowed to bid. Otherwise, an unqualified supplier could win the business or suppliers, seemingly separate but in league, could collude to keep prices high. (Do you really know what goes on overseas?)
  • lack of e-Sourcing expertise
    Auction’s don’t have to be stand-alone events. They can succeed RFxs and they can preceed decision optimization. They can include real-time optimization and rules for sole-source awards, split-awards, baskets, etc. The right knowledge can not only lead to the selection of the right type of auction, but an auction that complements the overall sourcing cycle.
  • lack of perceived trust
    As per this article on the potential pitfalls of e-Auctions over on the MIT Sloan Management Review, suppliers often see open-bid auctions negatively. They believe that the buyer is using an open-bid auction to unfairly force prices down through the inclusion of unqualified suppliers or fake bids.

Don’t be afraid of e-Auctions – they work great when used appropriately. Just don’t rush in until you do your planning.

8 Key Design Considerations for Optimizing Your Demand Planning Process: Part II


Today’s guest post is from Josh Peacher, a Senior Consultant in the Operations Practice of Archstone Consulting, A Hackett Group Company.

In the first installment, we focused on defining the 4 basic design considerations for optimizing your organization’s demand planning process. These considerations included:

  1. Utilization of time series forecasting and exception management to drive a base forecast
  2. Selecting the right software tool for your business
  3. Identifying a set of core metrics and KPIs that help to identify opportunities and drive accountability
  4. Effectively leveraging external information to elicit a more accurate forecast

These design considerations are foundational in nature and effectively addressing each will ensure that your organization’s demand planning process has a solid base. However, to truly move the needle towards world class performance, a set of more advanced considerations must be applied.

5. Drive Towards a Consensus Demand Plan

A formal demand planning process should conclude with an aligned set of forecast numbers that the entire organization understands and can speak to. This doesn’t necessarily mean that a “One-Number” forecast must be reached as this can be very difficult and cause a whole set of different issues. However, organizations should look to align on a set of numbers and be prepared to speak to and manage to the gaps. Key participants in the consensus demand plan conversation include Sales and Account Teams, Finance, Supply Planning, and Demand Planning. Each of these groups will bring a different perspective and set of information to the discussion resulting in a more informed final demand plan.

6. Identify the Right Level of Detail

When defining the appropriate level of detail to forecast at, leading companies strike a balance between importance to the business and complexity of the process. The diagram below defines a general set of guidelines for identifying the appropriate level of forecast detail based on the situation. As a general rule of thumb, the more important and complex the set of items is to the business, the higher the required level of detail and rigor.

Complexity vs. Importance

7. Ensure Adequate Resources

As I mentioned in the first installment, demand planning is commonly an overlooked element of supply chain planning. This often leads to an insufficient allocation of resources by the organization. Demand planning is an arduous process that requires a high level of dedication and attention. More times than not, I see organizations that have failed to realize this and leave their demand planning team without the necessary bandwidth to perform effectively. The net effect is a less accurate forecast, poor demand signals trickling through the system, and a higher turnover rate. A few simple rules of thumb to ensure that your organization is not falling into this trap include the following:

  • Install dedicated analysts for demand planning.
    This will ensure that demand planners are focusing on value-add activities and have the right information on hand to make informed decisions.
  • Make sure that your demand planners aren’t wearing too many organizational hats.
    It’s an odd phenomenon but demand planners often end up taking on responsibilities that are well outside of their job scope and not essential to their core function. The best way to decipher this is just to simply ask them where their pain points are. Trust me … they will tell you!
  • Understand which segments are the most critical and complex to the business and distribute them across your demand planner resources.
    Ideally, each of your demand planners will have a portfolio of demand responsibilities that are evenly distributed amongst the four quadrants of the above diagram.

8. Define your Organization Process Model

Too often I have seen organizations operating in an environment of chaos because they lack a defined process and cadence for their demand planning cycle. You may believe that you have a process in place, but can you articulate what it is? Can the demand planning resources in your organization define the calendar of events that make up the process? Many times what people believe to be a process is actually floating tribal knowledge and tends to vary depending on who you ask within the organization. Without a well-defined process, it’s difficult to hold others accountable and overall performance tends to suffer. An optimal process must be defined for each organization based upon it’s unique set of variables and constraints. However, the list below is a set of monthly activities that can be found in most leading company processes.

  • Prepare Data –
    Cleanse and gather all required data for the demand planning process (internal and external)
  • Generate Initial Forecast –
    Generate both the base statistical forecast and manage exception SKUs manually
  • Incorporate Market Intelligence –
    Collaborate with trade partners and external contacts to incorporate quantitative and qualitative data into the forecast (e.g., POS Data, Customer Forecast, Promotional Calendars, Pull-Forward Buys)
  • Consensus Reconciliation Meeting –
    Meet with sales and finance to reconcile the bottoms up forecast with top down financials and sales forecasts
  • Refine and Publish Final Forecast –
    Make final adjustments to forecast before transmitting to ERP
  • Monitor Performance –
    Monitor forecast for large anomalies and diagnose root cause of error

Thanks, Josh!

Good SaaS vs. Bad SaaS

A recent post over on Richard Anson’s blog on “11 Crucial Tactics for SaaS Pricing”, while written for new SaaS vendors who need to know how to price their solutions, did a great job of helping to point out some of the key elements of a good SaaS solution sales process vs. a bad SaaS solution sales process as well as some key elements of a good SaaS solution from a customer’s perspective vs. a bad SaaS solution from a customer’s perspective.

In particular, it focusses in on some of the key non-functional characteristics that should be examined in your SaaS purchase process. These non-functional characteristics can easily be summarized in a quick side-by-side comparison of good SaaS vs. bad SaaS.

 

Good SaaS Bad SaaS
Value-based Cost-based
ROI-justification Process Improvement
Business Case Justification Potential Manpower Reduction
Priced According to Company Size and Utilization One Price Fits All
Competitively Priced Priced Out of the Ballpark

 

In other words, if the SaaS solution is good, it will be competitively priced, and priced according to your company size and intended utilization, come with a business case justification, deliver a proven ROI, and clearly deliver ongoing value.

And if a SaaS solution is bad (for you), it will be priced out of the ball-park with respect to its competition (and be either too expensive to deliver value or too cheap for the company to sustain over the long term, which will lead either to the provider’s failure or substantial price increases at contract renewal time), have little in the way of a solid business case justification, or have a poor ROI over the short and/or long term. SaaS is more than features, functionality, hands-off management, and a cool web experience — it’s about delivering value to your bottom line.

For insights on how to cost out the TCO of a SaaS solution, and compare that TCO to an installed solution, see SI’s classic post on Uncovering the True Cost of On-Premise Sourcing & Procurement Software. For insights on what constitutes a good SaaS contract, see SI’s classic posts on SaaS Contractual Considerations (Part I and Part II). And remember, as per SI’s recent post on Maximizing ROI from Technology, it doesn’t matter how strategic the IT Vendor is, it only matters how strategic the solution they offer is.