Category Archives: Guest Author

Educating to Reduce Risk (in Your [Retail] Supply Chain)

Share This on Linked In

Editor’s Note: This post is from regular contributor Norman Katz, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on supply chain fraud and supply chain risk. Catch up on his column in the archives.

Being just a little past my mid-40s I realize I’m at risk (how appropriate or rather inappropriate is that in this blog!) of dating myself, but does anyone remember the phrase “The Three Rs”?

This phrase represents the basic foundation of education: reading, writing, and arithmetic.

Still to this day, and probably emphasized by all the standardized testing done which grades the performance of schools, I don’t think the necessity of this trio of core skills is any less important. However, I’d like to throw in a fourth (and actually fifth) R in regards to the benefits of education: risk reduction.

Of all the supply chains in the world, the retail supply chain in the United States is arguably the toughest and most sophisticated of them all. The smallest disruptions can result in profit losses and missed sales. Timeframes are very tight and the drive towards 100% perfection is relentless.

Retail suppliers invest heavily in technology, automation, and business processes to ensure they are complimentary collaborators with their retail trading partners, all with the goal of reducing the risk of not shipping the right products in the right time at the right quantity to the right destination in order to ensure their products are on the shelf when the consumer wants to buy them.

But what about investing in education to reduce risk? Can technology and automation eclipse the need for some sound, basic education on how to participate in a supply chain, retail or other? I would argue that such education is absolutely necessary. Without a good educational foundation, enterprises run the risk of incorrectly investing in technology and business processes that fail to truly address the root-cause of problems or don’t enable growth, planned or otherwise.

Selecting the right education provider can be tricky in-and-of-itself. There are plenty of companies who offer quality training. Do your due diligence and investigate the company and its trainers for experience and depth of knowledge. Keep in mind that anyone can offer training classes and that slick sounding company names may be just that and offer little in terms of training that will have any substance or credentials in daily business activities.

Certifications and training courses are often provided by trade associations. This is good because trade associations often carry a “name” or brand with them so there should be confidence in the quality of the education and that it will be recognized through one or more industry verticals.

Some associations are independent and are thus self-certifying. For these independent associations some have grown quite large and are well-recognized such that their certification is accepted and respected. Look at who is backing the certification and whether the backer has respect and visibility throughout one or more industry verticals. Is the training endorsed by outside entities? And just because a list of well-known companies is provided does not necessarily mean that the training is recognized as a standard or is widely respected. Do your homework! How long has the association been around and how many members does it have?

What this boils down to is that fraud can be perpetrated by training and education organizations too. Knowingly misrepresenting goods and services is fraud.

Buyer beware. Trust but verify. Due diligence.

Not just catchy phrases but ones to live by.

Norman Katz, Katzscan

Service Leaders Speak: Jim Wetekamp of BravoSolution on “Sourcing Leadership for the Recovery”

Share This on Linked In

Today’s guest post is from Jim Wetekamp of Bravo Solution, a global provider of supply management services and solutions (with offices across 3 continents).

It’s been just over a year since the financial crisis that signaled the worst of the global economic recession, and as we head back to work after summer vacation, businesses around the world are looking with a glimmer of hope towards the future. As the evidence in favor of a turnaround mounts, I am increasingly approached by sourcing leaders who are looking for ways to position their businesses for sourcing leadership in the recovery.

In truth, the visionary sourcing executives recognized early on that the objective for sourcing leadership doesn’t change at all as we dip into recession and then begin to recover. It is only the resources that they are allowed that changes. Ambitious executives will have seized the opportunities presented in the last year to be a strategic value driver for their businesses, driving cost out of the supply chain and helping to improve profitability in lean times. And they’ll have done that by adhering to the priorities that matter for sourcing leaders no matter the state of the economy:

Visibility, Fundamentals, and Evolution
Figure 1: Evolving Supply Management Priorities
The most successful sourcing leaders will have continued along this path over the last year; they will have kept their teams strong and armed them with the tools they need to succeed. These leaders are the ones who will find themselves best able to ride the crest of the recovery wave. They will not waste time staffing, training, and re-booting their sourcing organizations. Sadly, few organizations have weathered the past year fully intact, so what do sourcing executives need to do to lead in the recovery?

Sourcing Leadership’s job as the economy begins to recover is to rebuild the capabilities that were lost and get back on mission. This is not the time for a slow build; the most successful teams will be those who can quickly ramp their teams up and begin firing against all their priorities immediately. If you do nothing else, you should make sure your organization has best-in-class capabilities in three main areas:

Visibility and Opportunity Planning
If you don’t currently have visibility into your spend, it’s time to get a quick snapshot while laying the groundwork for a longer-term spend management program. Long term, a spend visibility tool will help you analyze and interpret your spending; you’ll likely also need a service provider experienced in rapid spend analysis to get you quickly through the initial opportunity identification phase. BravoSolution routinely delivers detailed opportunity analysis in a matter of weeks, even where our clients have spent months prior trying to understand their spend with internal resources.

Sourcing Fundamentals and Technologies
If you’re not using e-Sourcing tools, then you’re denying your business enormous efficiency gains, and wasting the time and expertise of your team on mundane recordkeeping tasks. You can move through the opportunities you identified faster and start realizing savings and managing vendors sooner if you’re using tools designed to accelerate that process. If you don’t have the bandwidth or expertise for a particular category, don’t be afraid to ask your technology provider for support – most leading e-Sourcing technology vendors, including BravoSolution, offer templates, advice, and even fully managed or outsourced events for their e-Sourcing customers.

Evolution and Extending Reach
The biggest disservice you can do for your organization (and your career) is to shy away from your most complex, highly visible categories at this moment. Strategic categories like transportation, packaging, and services mean too much to your business to be left to languish while your team rebuilds. You need to tackle these categories now, while suppliers are still eager to negotiate, and before a recovering economy begins to drive up costs in your biggest categories. Clearly, in categories that have such far-reaching impact across the organization, you cannot afford to fly blind. The value of pulling in a knowledgeable partner at this stage cannot be underestimated. Like other leading solution providers, BravoSolution regularly works with our customers to build tailored sourcing events that help our clients gain a deep understanding of their suppliers’ cost models and priorities, and to identify awards that drive efficiencies for both buyers and suppliers, reducing costs for both parties, and driving lasting, collaborative sourcing relationships.

By preserving, or better yet enhancing, your capabilities in these areas before the recovery takes hold, you will be poised to ride the wave of recovery and create competitive advantage for your business over the long term.

Thanks, Jim.

Service Leaders Speak: William Dorn of Source One on “Doing More With Less”

Share This on Linked In

Today’s guest post is from William Dorn, Director of Operations at Source One Management Services (who bring you Why Abe), and Kathleen Daly. William is a regular contributor to The Strategic Sourceror.

As companies continue to cope with the current economic conditions, Purchasing Departments, equipped with fewer resources than ever before, are expected to deliver continuous savings. Task lists lengthen due to internal and external pressures, and it becomes increasingly difficult to produce results in the form of cost reduction, cost avoidance and increased supplier value. The requirement of accomplishing more with less may be an overwhelming responsibility; but with the proper toolsets, resources and solutions available in the marketplace, Purchasing Professionals can begin to position their companies for growth as the economy recovers.

Before taking any further action, Purchasing Managers must first assess the situation in which they may find themselves. What internal and external pressures are influencing my productivity? Is my company able to withstand a supply chain disruption without serious repercussions? Do I have a risk mitigation strategy in place? Can I realistically reach my company’s goals with the resources I have available to me?

Internal pressures may be coming from many different directions. Executive Management asks for results in the form of costs savings and stable supply chains. The Finance Department requests extended payment terms. IT Departments may perceive the Purchasing Department as a cost center rather than a profit center, creating the impression that no technological investment is needed. Sales and Production Departments need inventory availability in order to deliver a product in a timely fashion. HR is not able to allocate more resources. Each department is focused on fulfilling their own responsibilities which often leads to additional constraints placed on other departments, namely Procurement.

The external environment and its increasing complexity have created additional burdens for Purchasing Departments. Let’s sum up what is taking place …

  1. Suppliers are refusing to agree to longer payment terms because they simply cannot afford the impact this would have on their cash flow. Also, many suppliers may no longer exist, and this requires buyers to invest time in forming relationships with new suppliers.
  2. Fuel prices are also starting to increase again, which will lead to rising commodity prices as well.
  3. Buyers may also experience reluctance from suppliers to participate in reverse auctions; and some are even refusing to respond to regular RFP events.

Whether Purchasing Professionals can relate to some of these pressures or, unfortunately, to all of them, the reality is that their supply chains may be unstable and action is required to bring them back to solid ground.

Now that we have covered some of the stress that Procurement Departments have been facing, Procurement must look internally to determine what efforts have been made in the past, what is working and what needs to be reevaluated. Procurement must reevaluate old strategies before implementing new ones. Slight modifications to legacy purchasing or sourcing methods could lead to more efficient processes and lower costs. You should not focus strictly on new categories; revisiting categories you have recently sourced may lead to drastically different results with a new approach. Markets change constantly and your company’s spend in a certain category may have increased, or perhaps the market demand for the product or service has decreased, enabling you to possibly leverage better pricing. Your past just may be the key to your future.

Alternative methods to what have been used in the past should also be explored. A recent study, published by AMR Research, found that organizations that rely heavily on technology could experience the same or greater inefficiencies and missed opportunities than their not-as-heavily tech-invested competitors. Procurement must reevaluate their existing methods and adoption of technology. Are you paying for an expensive, feature-rich procurement and sourcing suite, when in fact you only use 20% of the capabilities. If so, you must reevaluate the cost of deployment and take advantage of the other components, or eliminate the costs of the software by seeking out lower-cost alternatives that fit your organization’s individual needs.

Fortunately, the market for e-sourcing and procurement technologies has significantly expanded your options over the last few years. Low cost providers have emerged that often offer equivalent features to the largest tool providers. In fact, in the last several months, completely free toolsets, such as WhyAbe.com and ThomasNet.com’s Purchasing Manager, have seen a significant increase in adoption by not only companies that are new to procurement technologies, but by large organizations that are abandoning expensive toolsets in order to adopt free alternatives that serve the exact needs of their organizations. Moving to a lower-cost technology will not only help your company’s bottom line, it could help eliminate the idea that Procurement is a cost center, and could potentially allow Procurement to allocate funds into investing in new human resources.

However, regardless of which solution you adopt, be careful to use the tools properly in your organization. Purchasing and e-sourcing software solutions must be used as tools and not answers. No tool provider has the exact answer for any vertical market. Find a solution that best fits your organization’s requirements, don’t allow a technology dictate how you do business. Tools can facilitate project communications, shrink project timelines and retain templates and analysis for future use, but should not be used as a replacement for true strategic sourcing. Keep in mind that over-reliance on purchasing technology tools and processes may only automate the inherent problems with the existing processes in place. Before investing in new technology, be sure to put existing processes through a thorough analysis to identify opportunities for improvement. Whatever you do, be sure that your organization does not become an “RFP Spammer”.

Moving beyond technology, Procurement must evaluate other non-conventional options that it has available to it. Pre-negotiated contract websites (such as Master Negotiator), group buying organizations, and solution providers (such as Source One) can provide additional resources that help Purchasing Professionals accomplish goals without adding to a company’s cost structure. These resources enable buyers to let someone else manage the sourcing process for them, saving time and resources. Service organizations can provide low-risk solutions for companies of all sizes. These engagements allow access to market data, best practice processes, domain or category expertise, on-demand resources, effective tools, negotiation experience and insights, alternate sources of supply, and the establishment of long-term supply relationships.

Adopt the right blend of sourcing strategies for your organization. Many Procurement Service Providers can obtain better pricing than a GPO. Many companies excel at sourcing their strategic spends. Many purchasing departments have subject matter experts in particular categories that are considered market-leaders in their own rights. However, NO COMPANY is the best at every category. A GPO may work for you in several tactical spend areas, and can help reduce the overhead costs associated with sourcing and category management. Some spend categories are better served without the use of technology tools and require good old fashioned thinking, creativity and supplier interaction. Understand that a person who is incredibly familiar with a technology or product does not necessarily make them into a procurement guru or master negotiator. Using the correct blend of strategies in your organization can produce results far superior to sticking with one sourcing/procurement process across all of your spend areas.

One positive of this difficult economy is that it is opening the eyes of many Procurement Professionals. In the past, many Procurement departments would only seek out external help or external strategies if they were required to by executive management. In this day and age, Procurement is determining on their own that they need help and they are actively looking for it. Procurement Professionals have already realized the need to become more resourceful and proactive in their efforts in navigating the changing business climate, in many cases, much faster than the rest of their organization. Some have taken the initiative in identifying outsourcing services that provide low-risk solutions or temporarily help them increase their human capital. Adoption of contingency based sourcing consultants has seen a significant uptick, as it allows Procurement to expand their resources and tools without assuming any additional costs or risk to their businesses. With a contingency based service organization operating as an extension of a company’s Purchasing Department, there is no need to be concerned with whether or not the soft costs of an initiative will pay off in hard costs savings, as the right providers will agree to only get compensated on hard-dollar cost savings. With certain solution providers, implementation and all expenses are included in a pay for performance model and fees are contingent on achieving hard cost savings results. In the past, executive level individuals and finance departments have pursued these types of engagements. Now, the drivers of these engagements are Procurement Professionals as they reach out for help on their own. These proactive efforts will deliver improved results for a Purchasing Department.

The majority of an Organization’s internal resources should be allocated to optimization of the company’s strategic spend. If a certain product has a high supply risk and high value, it is essential to establish a secure and responsive supply base with the capabilities of meeting current and future business needs. Agreements with suppliers should be established so that both parties can share information and closely integrate systems to obtain operating efficiencies. This should result in reduced costs for both parties.

When faced with many challenges in this dynamic environment and accelerating expectations from within their organizations, Purchasing Professionals must take full advantage of the resources available to help them begin their climb out of the recession.

Thanks, William.

Service Leaders Speak: Robert Rudzki of Greybeard Advisors on “Consultants: Use Them Intelligently”

Share This on Linked In

Today’s guest post is from Robert A. Rudzki, a former Fortune 500 senior executive of supply management who now advises other companies as President of Greybeard Advisors LLC, a strategic management advisory firm. Bob has authored several business books including Beat the Odds: Avoid Corporate Death and Build a Resilient Enterprise and Straight to the Bottom Line. Bob also writes the “Transformation Leadership” blog for the Supply Chain Management Review. (e-mail Bob at rudzki <at> greybeardadvisors <dot> com.)

Chapter 22 of the book Straight to the Bottom Line has an intriguing title: “Consultants: To Use or Not to Use — That is the Question“.

When my co-authors and I wrote the book a few years ago, we were speaking as corporate practitioners, having led successful procurement transformations in a variety of industries.

Today, I’d like to build on that corporate perspective (in my case almost 30 years at Fortune 500 companies), to share some additional observations that emerge from my experiences working with clients as their advisor.

First of all, let me say that I reread Chapter 22 before writing this post, and found its advice sound and very timely. If you haven’t read the book, or the chapter on consultants, you really ought to.

In fact, a table that appears in the chapter is worth repeating here:

 

Unnecessary to Use Consultants Consider Using Consultants
Benchmarks confirm that your internal processes/results are best-in-class You lack benchmarks and are uncertain how good your processes and staff are
Company is able to make ongoing investments (people, systems) to achieve and remain best-in-class Not able to invest as needed
Best-in-Class Category/Market Expertise No particular internal strength
No urgency to achieving significant cost reductions Time is of the essence for achieving improvements
Best-in-class already, and still reaping new benefits each year Not generating significant new benefits each year
Internal staff able to effectively deal with internal politics Internal politics constrain achievement of cost reduction objectives; a “third party” might have credibility
Your organization lacks a leader, and you hope that the consulting firm can fill that gap You want to supplement your internal talent for a defined time period

 

Source: Straight to the Bottom LineNote: Straight to the Bottom Line is a registered trademark of Greybeard Advisors

Since Greybeard Advisors was formed five years ago, my colleagues and I have had the pleasure of working with large and medium size companies in most industry segments (including manufacturing, process, health care, services, retail). We’ve seen some excellent practices relating to using consultants (or advisors) intelligently.

We’ve also seen some poor practices that are all-too-common. In one case, we were invited in to do a “post mortem” on a consulting project by a large firm, and saw examples of fundamental errors by both the client and the consulting firm.

As I reflect on what I have seen and heard, some of the key learnings can be boiled down to the following chart. Take a minute or two to carefully review it. You should notice that using consultants intelligently requires mindset and behavior changes by both the client company as well as the consulting firm.

 

What Typically Happens Leading Edge Practice
Top-down directive that the procurement department will work with a specific consulting firm Procurement leader takes the initiative and sends an RFI to a broad range of potential service providers (large and small firms; consulting vs. advisory firms); short list invited to respond to an RFP
Selection criteria unknown, beyond assumed personal relationships at the executive level Selection criteria established as part of the RFP process, and are consistent with the needs/desires of the procurement organization and the company
Consulting firm uses “A” team to manage the executive relationship, but sends the “B” team of inexperienced junior consultants to learn on the job and “do the project” Firm is selected only after ironclad assurances that the “A” team of experienced advisors will be assigned; resumes of advisors are provided; and the client is encouraged to interview each advisor.
Consulting agreement is rigid and aggressive, requiring a hard commitment to a large number of full-time consultants for a defined timeframe (often 6 to 12 months, or more). Agreement is flexible, reflecting the client’s workplace realities, needs and timing
Consulting firm disrupts everyone’s “regular job” in bid to ensure that its project is everyone’s priority and is a success Firm works with the reality of client’s workplace and schedule, and is careful not to be a disruptive force
After consulting firm leaves, reported “savings” start to evaporate or can’t be found Firm has embedded processes and capabilities into the client organization, which now can create more successes on its own

 

(c) Greybeard Advisor LLC, All Rights Reserved

One of the fundamental choices you need to consider is whether you want to employ a “consultant” or an “advisor”. The distinction is not just semantics, it is core to what you are trying to achieve.

Do you want a hired gun to knock out some work and then depart? Or do you want an advisory approach in which process knowledge (e.g. specific best practices such as strategic sourcing and negotiations management) and commodity knowledge are transferred to your team?

To use a familiar analogy: Do you want someone to hand your team a fish dinner, or do you want your team to learn how to be successful fishermen themselves while they catch their first few fish?

Thanks, Bob!

Dietary Changes to Our Risk Appetite

Share This on Linked In

Editor’s Note: This post is from regular contributor Norman Katz, Sourcing Innovation’s resident expert on supply chain fraud and supply chain risk. Catch up on his column in the archives.

The cover story of the June 22nd, 2009 issue of Information Week magazine was titled: “What’s Your Appetite For Risk?“. The article was part of the magazine’s annual security survey.

What we initially learn in the article should be of little surprise: the recession is taking its toll on all aspects of company operations, including investments in technology security and compliance, though these two concepts should not be confused with one another. A lot of focus was given to security and compliance within cloud computing.

With budgets stressed and spending trimmed, the appetite for risk has been forced to grow a little larger as priorities are examined in more detail to determine where — and how — limited dollars should be spent. As the article continues, compliance requirements are getting funded to keep (public) companies surviving from one audit to the next, but that doesn’t really mean that risks are being managed properly.

A reader of my blog posts (on Sourcing Innovation) contacted me in early July to tell me about a supply chain risk management success story. Nick Woods is in the public relations department of Red Prairie, a software company that specializes in warehouse management, transportation, and workforce management solutions. Nick shared with me a press release on the implementation of Red Prairie’s warehouse management solution at Sargento Foods who is known for their cheeses, sauces, and snacks.

In the press release, the VP of Logistics at Sargento Foods, Dennis Roehrborn, was quoted as stating: “By upgrading the solution in our Plymouth, Wisconsin distribution center and satellite plants in Kiel and Hilbert, we are better equipped to exceed customer expectations for accurate order fulfillment and on-time delivery.”

While there are many risks to supply chain operations, the failure to meet customer expectations is certainly a critical one. Regardless of how great your product is few customers will tolerate repeated supply chain disruptions that increase operating costs and result in a failure to cost-effectively get the right product on the store shelf when the customer wants to buy it.

Here is a great example of a company who recognized risk and managed it by investing in the necessary technology. Mr. Roehrborn also states that the implementation was minimally disruptive to existing operations and that productivity target goals were exceeded with the new software.

Seems to me like Sargento Foods has such a large appetite for its supply chain relationships, (and probably a good appetite for the quality products they produce too), that they decided to put themselves on a diet when it comes to risk.

The need to exceed customer expectations is even more important in a recessed economy, and companies must proactively assess the risk of losing sales and customers versus the cost of doing nothing. Managing risk doesn’t require taking bigger bites than you can swallow at one time — that would be foolish when tackling most any project. Even if you have to nibble at it a little at a time, chewing carefully and thoughtfully, make the investments necessary to little-by-little reduce risk and improve performance.

And don’t forget to brush regularly and floss daily.

Norman Katz, Katzscan