Category Archives: Decision Optimization

Optimization: Is It Time to Move Beyond Sourcing?

A big focus of this blog is, of course, Strategic Sourcing Decision Optimization (SSDO), one of the few advanced sourcing methodologies guaranteed to save your organization, on average, 12% if correctly applied (as demonstrated in two back-to-back studies by Aberdeen) and the doctor‘s speciality. But it’s not the only place you can apply optimization in Supply Management to save money. Another area, as covered a number of times on SI, is Supply Chain Network Optimization (SCNO). And, of course, some companies just focus on the intersection and do Logistics optimization. But this is not everything that can be done, or should be done, especially in an age where many industries now see The End of Competitive Advantage and don’t actually own physical assets, leasing them as need be to create the products and services desired by their prospective customers.

In this situation, what matters is Asset Optimization, where you optimize a one-time dynamic network to minimize sourcing, network, and logistics costs to minimize the total supply chain costs associated with the product you wish to produce. This is easier said than done. In sourcing, you are mainly considering bids, lanes, and associated costs to compute the optimal TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), and if lifetime costs and metrics are available, or TVG (Total Value Generated) with respect to a fixed situation. In network optimization, you are optimizing the location of owned factories, supplier production centers, warehouses, and retailers to optimize the distribution costs. But in asset network optimization, you have to simultaneously consider the network and associated distribution costs, the sourcing requirements and associated production costs, and the costs of using, or not using, the resources you already have available and contracts you have already negotiated. In addition, you have to consider the risks associated with each potential supplier and location, the sensitivity of the overall asset network to each supplier and location (and is there a single point of failure), and the ability to dynamically alter the network should a failure occur or customer demands change.

Plus you have all of the difficulties associated with each type of optimization. With respect to the network, there will be many alternatives for production site, each site will have multiple, and different, asset lines, and each asset will be qualified for a certain operation with respect to a certain product. In addition, some assets will be more efficient and cost effective, and unqualified assets will have a qualification/certification step, which will require limited manpower – a variable that does not need to be modelled in traditional sourcing or SCNO models. It’s a very difficult problem that requires modelling of multiple types of variables and constraints at multiple levels at multiple times. And this last requirement makes the model even more complex. In a traditional sourcing model, you don’t really need to consider “time”, as it doesn’t matter how often the trucks deliver your product, just how many trucks are needed to deliver your product as you are billed FTL or LTL by the delivery. And it doesn’t matter what production schedule the supplier(s) use(s) as long as your products are ready on time, so only the total volume need be considered. But when you are dealing with production models, especially when trying to dynamically construct and optimize an asset network, production schedules are significant. If a certain location only has 30% of capacity left available and can only schedule it during a given timeframe, that has to be taken into account. If some of the products have to be delivered before they can complete the first production run, then there has to be a location that is able to do so. And if a continual supply is needed over nine months, the production cycles should more or less line up with minimal overlap as, otherwise, inventory costs would soar.

It’s a complicated problem, but one that is becoming more and more important in fast moving industries such as fashion and consumer electronics — and one that most SSDO providers can’t address. But I’m happy to report that there are a few optimization vendors in the space who can. One is Algorhythm, in India, that has been doing SCNO for many years, and who has built up a lot of this capability over time while working for it’s global multinational clients such as Unilever. Another, newer entrant, is Trade Extensions, that has been doing SSDO for many years and, at the request of its major multi-national clients, including P&G and Coca-Cola, built up the capability in their solution with innovative new platform enhancements since SI last reviewed their solution in 2011 that make it very easy to define the models, run the scenarios, compare and navigate the results. A few of these enhancements will be described in a future post. Stay tuned!

Need a Truck? BuyTruckLoad.com!

Believe it or not, counter to every nerve in your body, you should be buying a portion of your freight business on the spot market! Take a minute, get those gasps out, and SI will explain why.

Simply put, for the vast majority of product-based companies, freight is the one category that is inefficient from a contract perspective. At first thought, this might not make sense as efficiencies and cost savings typically come from good planning, but this is precisely why you can often get significantly better rates spot-buying your freight than contracting it.

To see this, you have to look at the situation from your carrier’s viewpoint. It is most efficient, and most profitable, when it’s trucks are kept full. Your contracts keep your carrier’s trucks full at most half the time. Specifically, your contracts keep your carrier’s trucks full from point A to point B. Maybe it has a few pallets to take back to point A, but that doesn’t fill the truck, and it’s only efficient (from your point of view) if the carrier waits until the truck is full to take the pallets back. In order to maximize efficiency and profitability, the carrier needs business from point B back to point A. The chances of the carrier getting precisely this business when competing against 70,000 other carriers and only getting called to the bid on one of every 10,000 or 20,000 freight contracts being tendered are probably 40,000 to 1. Not good odds.

Plus, even if the carrier’s lucky enough to get business that geographically fills, say, 80% of the route from B back to A, chances are the timing doesn’t line up right and the truck ends up sitting idle for a few days on a regular basis, which also takes away from efficiency or profitability.

Because of this, and because of the fact that the carriers have to hedge their bets when you ask them to contract three, six, and twelve months out, you end up paying, on average 14%-15% more for contracted freight than you do freight purchased efficiently on the spot market (if you know what you are doing or use a good freight brokerage). In particular, even if you’ve done a great job on your contract, you’re probably paying, on average, over $1,400 for a load that you could get for $1,300 or less on the spot market.

That’s why Sean Devine and John Labrie, each with over a decade of transportation sourcing and optimization (at CombineNet, Emptoris, and Con-Way), built BuyTruckload.com — the first automated truckload brokerage service. This service, built on an advanced real-time truckload optimization model, takes your requirements, searches their database of over 70,000 carriers (and current spot market prices) across the United States (each with an average of 4 trucks), and gets you a quote that is, on average, $100 less than you would expect to get otherwise (buying yourself with a limited selection of carriers), and $200 less than you would if you were contracting months in advance (based on an average truckload price of $1,400+ and an average savings of 15%).

It’s quick, simple, and almost obvious — and that’s what makes it so useful. As a buyer, all you have to do is define the acceptable authority types (contract, common, broker), the acceptable / required equipment types (bus, van, flatbed, refrigerated, dry van, etc. — they allow for 16 different types), the cargo authorities (private, property, etc.), the safety alerts you will (not) accept (unsafe driving, driver fitness, etc.), the required number of power units, and where you need the trucks and the system will identify the relevant carriers. Define your shipping requirements, and it will generate binding quotes. It’s that simple, and if you use the right mix of contract and spot-buy freight, it could save you a lot of money.

Please note that the right mix is key! Even if the 15% savings are there for you, it’s probably not a good idea to put all of your freight on the spot market. You need to know you have enough reserved freight for critical products (at critical times) and carriers need to know they have enough baseline business to sustain themselves. the doctor‘s gut is that you probably want a 2 to 1 ratio between contract and spot market, on average. In some industries and/or categories, this ratio will be higher (because, let’s face it, you don’t care if you get those office supplies a day late), and in others it will be lower. But a 2 to 1 ratio is probably a good starting point.

Wait!

That’s right, don’t make that big decision today, Wait and use the art and science of delay to your advantage.

With summer came heat and a new book by Frank Partnoy, Professor of Law and Finance at the University of San Diego and the Co-Director of the Center for Corporate and Securities Law. In Wait, Frank proposes a contrarian perspective on decision making that suggests that slowing down your response time can yield better results as per a recent review over on S+B.

According to Frank, decisions of all kinds, whether “snap” or long-term strategic, benefit from being made at the last possible moment. The art of knowing how long you can afford to delay before committing is at the heart of many a great decision. This is a great maxim for Supply Managers to live by. There’s a reason that sales people often want you to “act now” and have you “take advantage of this deal before it’s too late” is they know that if you don’t act now, and do your homework, you’ll probably figure out the merchandise is over-priced, over-represented, or not quite what you’re looking for and that you can get the same deal, with a bit of patience and negotiating, from a hungrier supplier down the street.

And this goes double for software sales. If the sales-person is paid a variable commission based on total sales for the quarter, or year (which is a stupid way to implement an incentive model, by the way*), at certain times of the year he’s going to be very pressured to just make a sale, any sale, and all too eager to over-promise what he knows the IT department will likely under-deliver on.

This maxim should also be applied in the selection of new logistics providers, supply chain designs, and operating procedure changes. While it is imperative that your supply chain be as lean and mean as possible, it often happens that rushing to meet the goal only results in a whole lot of running as rushed implementations often end up with holes that require a whole lot of rushing to fill. And while it’s likely that you are losing money every day you don’t implement that new supply chain design that is expected to save you millions, if you don’t take the time to do a proper risk assessment, you could lose your savings five times over when a new tariff scheme gets approved in six months (that everyone who did their research saw coming) or a trade agreement expires.

So while you should be exploring new technologies, processes, and innovations that could enhance your Supply Management organization as soon as you discover them, you shouldn’t rush a final decision until you’ve given yourself some time to re-examine all the findings. (But then, once you’re sure, jump in with both feet. If you hold back, in Supply Management, even the best laid plans will fail.)

* While a software company should incentivize it’s sales team to sell more, it should not do so at the cost of customer success. There are better ways to implement an incentive model which will allow both goals to be achieved.

All Models Still Lead to Total Value Management

Not that long ago, Sourcing Innovation released “Taking the First Step on Your Next Level Supply Management Journey”, a white paper sponsored by BravoSolution that defined a simple 3-level maturity model that an organization can use to determine where it is on it’s Supply Management organizational journey. Noting that your organziation is either below average, above average, or best-in-class*, SI did not see any point in trying to be more complex (even though many industry associations, consulting firms, and analyst powerhouses will often proffer four and five level models).

And while the acronyms and acclamations — including VFS, Hi-Def Sourcing, Next Level Supply Management, Next Practices, and Value Chain Creation — will fly fast and furious, there is still one commonality among all leading models, including Gartners Global Trade Management Maturity Model, which is nicely summarized in this free white paper from Amber Road that offers “A Model for Value Chain Transformation”.

That commonality is something that the doctor has been prescribing for over five-years — Total Value Management (TVM). When you get right down to it, that’s what Strategic Business Enablement is all about. Maximizing value across the orgnization, end-to-end. In the sourcing process, the organizational model, the finance operation, the (information) technology platform(s), product management (& marketing), risk management, asset management, and relationships — the eight directions of the supply management navigator’s compass. QFD (quality function deployment), maximization of SUM (Spend Under Management), and end-to-end transportation management is all about extracting maximum total value for the organization. Demand creation, joint innovation, and new market entry is all about creating maximum total value for the organization.

And that’s why, if you’re not already there (above average and on the road to best-in-class), and more than half of you are not, you need to be moving to an advanced sourcing platform that supports in-depth spend-related analysis, decision optimization, collaboration, and market-informed category-based sourcing. These tools allow you to identify, maximize, extract, and retain value in your operations. For more information on these technologies, check out SI’s other recent white-paper, also sponsored by BravoSolution, on the “Top 10 Technologies for Supply Management Savings Today”.

*but not average as average can only be defined as an organization that is dab-smack in the middle of every other organization

The Category Sourcing Scorecard – An Essential Tool for Collaborative Category Sourcing

Collaborative Category Sourcing is the foundation for eSourcing 3.0, whatever that happens to be. Why? As pointed out on SI, it is the only way to achieve savings above and beyond the limits of spend analysis and/or decision optimization, which max out at an average of 11% and 12% respectively, and this is especially true when the category has been strategically sourced (repeatedly). And the savings can be substantial. As pointed out in SI’s recent white-paper (sponsored by BravoSolution) on the “Top 10 Technologies for Supply Management Savings Today” (registration required), if the right combination of technologies are applied in the right way, they can often deliver 15%, 20%, 30%, and even 40% savings on hundred-million plus categories which were heavily scrutinized in the past and where little or no savings are expected. That’s why collaborative sourcing — which works best when it’s category focussed — is needed.

But how do you select the right category to start with? It’s certainly not as simple as selecting the category with the largest spend, the category with the least recent sourcing exercise, or the category coming up for renewal in six months. There are a number of internal, market, supplier, buyer, and category-specific factors that need to be taken into account — and this recent post on The Category Sourcing Scorecard over on CPO Rising did a great job of summarizing the vast majority of them.

Internally, the right category is the one with a contract maturing at the right time (which is typically three to nine months in the future, depending on the time it will take to do the sourcing project right), a documented sourcing history, a number of concerned stakeholders — who are willing to be engaged, and an accessible spend history (which, although not clear from the summary, should also contain usage, return, and inventory history).

From a market perspective, there should be enough competition to make an event worthwhile, the availability of one or more substitutes (if the current product has one or more patented, single-source, components), some bargaining power for the buyer, and barriers to market entry for both the product the buyer is producing and the capabilities offered by the suppliers (as, otherwise, new suppliers could set up shop overnight, sell to new buyers at cut-rates to establish business, and hurt your entire supply chain). In addition, the supply/demand (im)balance, which factors into the buyer’s bargaining power, should be known and relatively predictable.

From a supplier perspective, it should require some specialization (that the supplier can use to set itself apart), provide for profit margins, contain value-add components (valuable to the supplier and your customers), and a level of technical excellence. In addition, there should be suppliers who are financially stable, innovative, and willing to work with you to find substitute raw materials, components, designs, or production processes that will take costs down and push quality up.

From a buying perspective, there should be the potential to achieve some supply assurance, minimize production impact, save money, and require a production volume that will be attractive to the suppliers. In addition, there should be some signs that costs and risks can be reduced significantly enough to make the project worthwhile. This could take the form of falling raw material prices, the recent introduction of innovative new manufacturing technologies, or increased market competition.

From a category perspective, impact, complexity, and lead time will definitely be key factors, as noted by the post, but so could organizational importance, sustainability, and C-suite support. This will often be the hardest category to judge and score.

Which brings us to the following question – how do you score the scorecard? Do all the categories have equal weight, or are some more important than others? Making them all equal is certainly a valid starting point, as it will let you quickly eliminate categories that are really bad (with low scores in multiple categories), but may not be enough to let you choose between a category which scores great except for market factors, another which scores great except for supplier factors, and a third which scores great except for category factors.

In reality, the right scoring framework will be dependent upon the ultimate goal. If the ultimate goal is (still) to reduce cost, then the market factors should get the most weight. If supply assurance is the most important goal, then the buying factors should get the most weight. And if innovation is the desired outcome, the supplier factors should likely get the most weight. While it’s hard to make a hard and fast rul, here’s a good starting point for weighting.

 

To Focus On: Put a Higher Weight On:
Cost Market Factors
Supply Assurance / Risk Mitigation Buying Factors
Innovation / Value-Add Supplier Factors
Stakeholder Inclusion Internal Factors
Organizational Strategy Category-Specific Factors