Category Archives: Guest Author

The Top Three V: Learning to Communicate

As indicated in my last post, here is Kevin Brooks contribution to the Top Three. He takes a different spin, focussed on internal communication, but it is valuable insight nonetheless.

3 Ways To Get Buy-In

As a marketing guy, you’re required to be something of a corporate voyeur in order to put your finger on the real pain facing your customers. In darkened rooms, behind one-way glass partitions, I’ve watched focus group after focus group of procurement executives complain about how they can’t get buy-in from their organizations. “We communicate all the time, but it doesn’t seem to make any difference!” I recall one harried CPO of a multi-billion dollar company telling his nodding colleagues around the table.

While I’m sure every corporate function shares this perspective from time to
time, procurement teams seem uniquely saddled with difficulties making
themselves understood to their organizations. So, in the spirit of this
blogathon, I’d like to offer three rules that can help the struggling
procurement executive communicate more effectively.

Rule #1: Listen To Your Audience

You may think you’re simply putting out information, but your audience views things differently. The best communications start with listening, and an understanding that you’re always engaged in a dialogue – not a monologue — with your audience.

There are formal and informal ways of listening to your audience. The
easiest is to simply talk with them. How do people like to receive
information? What format is best for them – email, snail mail, voicemail,
instant messaging, carrier pigeon? What makes them read or listen to
something now versus saving it for later? What kinds of messages do they
ignore completely? Why?

Do this regularly, and make adjustments to your approach based on what you hear. Basically, just give your audience the same attention you’d give an
important supplier, and the simple fact that you took the time to ask them
their opinions will cause your next email or presentation to be “heard”
louder and clearer.

Rule #2: Repeat, Repeat, Repeat

It would seem logical to put out information that builds on what you’ve said
before. If last week you talked about the new travel spend policy, there’s
no need to rehash that old news when you want to let people know about the new p-cards, right? Wrong.

It has been said that on average it takes people 6-9 times to receive
information before they “get” it. One email, or a single team presentation
won’t cut it. Repeat, repeat, repeat. Even when you’re sick to death of
telling people about the travel spend policy, grit your teeth and keep
mentioning it. It takes discipline, sure, but if you want to get a message
across, this is how you do it. There are no shortcuts.

Rule #3: Keep It Simple

This rule is tough, especially if your organization is filled with detail-oriented gurus from the Pierre Mitchell school of PowerPoint. And, to give them their due, complexity surrounds us in the business world and you would think people could deal with a few extra bullet points or paragraphs here and there.

Sorry, but they can’t. Your audience isn’t illiterate, but they are busy and
distracted professionals. If you can’t make your point efficiently, they
tune out. It is far better to get one message across clearly, than to get 10
messages across muddled.

Keep things simple by limiting your message to one idea per communication. And remember: shorter is always better.

So there you have it. Three simple rules that can improve your
communications and help you gain buy-in for procurement across the
organization:

  1. Know Your Audience
  2. Repeat, Repeat, Repeat
  3. Less Is More

Good luck!


P.S. Jon Miller’s post on Lean Sourcing: The Top Three is up now as well!

Winning the Battle on Risk: Information and Technology

Today I’d like to welcome back Jim Lawton, VP and General Manager of Open Ratings, a D&B company, back for a follow-up on his “Five Types of Supply Risk” piece and the role of information and technology in risk mitigation.

Let’s face it – the single best way to reduce your exposure to risk introduced by suppliers is to know them. And I mean really know them. For any of the five types of risk we identified last time, it means having insight well beyond what you track today. Not only how much they cost you, but also how much they cost your competitors – and how well they perform for your competitors. It means knowing about everything from EPA and OSHA violations and changes in their leadership to their growth plans and whom else they do business with.

Some great sources of information into just how well your suppliers are doing, include things like:

  • Real estate transactions
  • Legal actions
  • ITAR filings (esp. in the case of dealing with overseas suppliers)
  • SEC filings
  • Tax returns

At its worst, it means knowing things about them that they aren’t likely to tell you. So you need to go out and find it.

Sure. Given the likely state of your procurement operations – more suppliers, not less –

in spite of rationalization; suppliers 12 time zones away operating in countries with much more lax reporting regulations and fewer resources to actually manage all of this, odds are good that right now you are asking “how much time does this guy actually think I have to spend investigating every little bit of data and figuring out if it matters to me!?!”

The good news is that you don’t have to do. Technology makes it possible. Think about it: Intelligent systems are everywhere. Your car tells you when it needs service and books an appointment at the dealer; your GPS system gives you an up-to-the-minute way to navigate out of a traffic jam; your house knows when you are home and turns the lights on just as you move into each room.

So why shouldn’t it be possible to apply smart solutions to make your life easier – and shrink the risk factor.

Today, data aggregation solutions are able to do what you would do, if you had the time: scan thousands of sources – regulatory agency sites, financial and credit reports, news releases, tax and real estate filings, competitors’ internal systems and much, much more. With a million documents on your desk, you’d pick out what matters and analyze it within the context of your own business. Using your years of experience and deep knowledge about the supplier, you’d decide to act on it if needed. You might switch suppliers or intervene to shore up a critical supplier.

Information, technology and you. Risk on the run. Life is good.

Quantifying Quality in Lean Sourcing Initiatives

Today I’d like to welcome guest contributor Lisa Reisman, the Managing Director of Aptium Global, a direct materials advisory sourcing advisory firm. Lisa Reisman, now the CEO of MetalMiner, can be reached by email at lreisman<at>metalminer<dot>com.

I’m sure that a good number of readers of this blog are familiar with the basic concepts of lean manufacturing, which is all about eliminating waste and removing any steps in a process for which a customer would not explicitly pay for. But even more readers of this blog are schooled in the art of strategic sourcing.

Lean Sourcing blends both lean and strategic sourcing. In our view, the result is total enterprise cost reduction, as opposed to line item or category cost reduction which typically does not include many operational and quality factors that add costs outside of procurement. If you aren’t measuring quality from your supply base, you aren’t practicing Lean Sourcing.

Many organizations use supplier scorecards — but few really establish baselines of performance from their incumbent suppliers. The reason incumbent suppliers typically win “bids or ebids” is because buying organizations think they have a good handle on quality. Or, they choose to deploy the “I’d rather work with the devil I know vs. the devil I don’t.” But if you don’t measure, you don’t know. And if you don’t know, you have no idea if your current vendors are your lowest total cost suppliers.

From a Lean Sourcing perspective, at a minimum, companies should deploy a scorecard which measures the following: Material Acceptability (NPT’s — Non Conforming Product Tickets Issued), Quantity/Purchase Order Reliability, Timeliness, CAR Response time (Corrective Action Request), and Packaging. These metrics certainly cover the basics. But the question becomes: how do companies use this data to weight suppliers when making award decisions?

Many companies use the scorecard for on-going quality assurance and certainly as a means for addressing potential problem issues. But few create a linkage of supplier quality and performance as a factor into sourcing decisions. True, most sourcing platforms take into consideration quality elements (e.g. most platforms allow the buyer to “weight” quality performance parameters). In the real world, however, many of these methods end up being quite qualitative and in some cases, arbitrary. Let’s face the facts — buyers like to use their incumbent suppliers not only because they have a relationship with them but because they feel their operations folks are content and/or pleased with the quality levels received from their current suppliers.

But let’s take a look at this in a little more detail. Automotive companies rely heavily on PPM (or Parts Per Million) or DPMO (Defective Parts per Million Opportunities) data. By examining a year’s worth (or more) of supplier scorecards which measure NPT’s (above) a sourcing professional can assign a sigma value or DPMO value to any incumbent supplier. A six sigma supplier would be supplying parts at a rate of <3.4 DPMO, or less than 3.4 defects per million parts received.

The truth is that while many companies claim their suppliers are “six sigma”, when one really tracks the data over a 12 month period, in reality PPM numbers are actually much higher. In the case of low cost country sourcing, it is not uncommon to receive a couple of defective parts per shipment (and there aren’t too many parts that are shipping at the rate of over 1,000,000 pieces per shipment!) These defects can begin to add substantial cost quite quickly. More sophisticated organizations have conducted activity based costing analyses to quantify the cost of poor quality from every step within the production process. Of course an error caught earlier in the process (e.g. during incoming inspection) is a lot cheaper to correct than identifying an error caught later in the process say after production (e.g. when the part would likely need to be re-made).

In our view, manufacturing organizations of all sizes can better incorporate quality into the sourcing process. As a foundation, we recommend:

    1. Implementing supplier score-cards, and at a minimum, tracking every shipment using the 5 metrics discussed above. If you have been using supplier scorecards already, assign a sigma value or a DPMP/PPM number to all of your suppliers to understand your baseline.
    2. Communicating to your supply base your quality intentions. For example, if you are in the automotive industry, you are probably being told by your OEM customers that you need to be shipping 0 ppm parts. Hold your supply base accountable to the same standards.
    3. When deploying sourcing initiatives, look at your largest categories by dollars and by quality and focus Lean Sourcing efforts on those categories where your cost of quality has eroded organizational cost savings on a total cost basis.

If you want to dig further into the concept of Lean Sourcing and how it can reduce your total enterprise costs, let me refer you to a whitepaper that I co-wrote on the subject that is available for free download on the Aptium Global Site.

The CPO Tales

Last week, over on supply excellence, Tim Minahan posted three interviews he did with three leading supply management executives on behalf of eyeforprocurement, which is hosting the Supplier Management Forum next April in Miami. (Register before year’s end to save $400 of the registration price, and quote “Sourcing Innovation” in the discount code area of the registration form to save another $100.)

These interviews were published on SupplyExcellence [WayBackMachine]:

  • Tale of Three CPOs: Coors Brewing Company November 21, 2006
    Tale of Three CPOs: Alltel November 22, 2006
    Corus: The Final CPO Tale…err…Short Story November 24, 2006

They are worth the read.

The Sourcing Innovation Series: Part XI

Today I’d like to welcome guest contributor John Martin of Building SaaS to Sourcing Innovation with a guest post on The Future of Sourcing … for Services. If you followed the On-Demand series, you might remember that I discussed his article “How True Software-as-a-service Delivers More Value” extensively in the fourth installment of my On Demand series.

Our focus is on purchased services: consulting services, contingent labor, outsourcing services, field services, legal services, etc. What we’ve found, in providing our Services Procurement solution to dozens of Fortune 500 companies, is that companies gain the best results by managing the entire end-to-end lifecycle of purchased services.

The primary characteristic of service categories is that they are all different. However, I’ll mention a few commonalities about managing purchased services, then suggest a few ways we’re seeing our leading-edge customers manage and optimize services spending.

First, here are some generalized characteristics about purchased services:

Services spending is growing: With the increases in business process outsourcing and focus on core competencies, services spending is increasing twice as fast as that on indirect goods spending, according to CAPS Research. Economically, the prices of services are also inherently inflationary since they are closely tied to labor costs, which increase over time faster than goods costs, on average – the Federal Bank of New York’s analysis shows that services’ inflation rate has stayed consistently 2.6% over that of goods over the last three decades.

Core PCE Goods and Core PCE Services Inflation 1968:1-2002:4

Services spending is often difficult to manage centrally: For some services categories such as marketing services and legal services, functional executives “own” the supplier relationships and spending. For others such as contingent workers and facilities management services, the sourcing and purchasing activities are dispersed throughout the enterprise.

There can be many unknowns at sourcing time: Some services such as contingent workers and print services have unique requisitions every time, so up-front pricing is difficult to establish. In other cases, the needs of the enterprise change more quickly than anticipated at sourcing time, which has led many multi-year outsourcing engagements to fail.

Services spending involves a lot of uniqueness: every contract is unique with terms in the statement of work text, requisitions are often unique, services deliverables are different for every contract, and the quality and acceptance measures differ by category, contract, and deliverable.

“Value delivered” is often a key concept for purchased services: When a services provider touches your customers directly (such as call-center outsourcing or field installation services) or can positively impact your business results (IT application development services, marketing services), the potential value of those services becomes a multi-dimensional concept (including multiple flavors of “quality”) to continuously measure and improve.

Finally, services involve many additional risks: When a supplier’s workers come onsite to deliver the services, now there are risks to manage regarding security, safety, confidentiality, etc. For contingent workers, there are HR-related risks such as co-employment and worker classification, as well as tracking the results of prior work performed by the worker.

As a result of these characteristics of purchased services, sourcing becomes an ongoing process rather than an event. For example, in some categories such as contingent workforce and print, the sourcing event creates the marketplace of preferred suppliers, and each requisition is sent out to the suppliers for bid – sourcing at procurement time. For almost all services categories, the delivery phase produces information that allows better sourcing and contract negotiating in the next sourcing phase.

After managing this iterative process for a few years, it’s almost impossible to continue to improve the cost basis of services through sourcing, at least since wage pricing started firming up a couple of years ago.

So we’re seeing companies turn to other ways to improve services sourcing, as hints to the future of sourcing. Extending Eric Strovink’s compliance comments and Tim Minahan’s “frontline sourcing” concept (explained over on Supply Excellence [WayBackMachine]), here are some trends that we see improving services sourcing going forward:

Link sourcing with procure-to-pay and spend analysis: Some would say that for services, contract execution and compliance are everything. The cost savings and value from contracted deliverables are on paper after sourcing, but are actually captured only through a tightly coupled procure-to-pay program. Then, spend analysis on the detailed requisition, deliverable and invoice activities allows improved re-sourcing the next time, in a cyclical sourcing-improvement process.

Actively use learning strategies throughout the cycle to improve sourcing: Since services have many unknowns at sourcing time, and much of the services value is determined during the delivery phase, companies are engineering their supplier relationships and processes to maximize learning. For example, multi-sourcing sets up a competition among service providers, and spending can be directed to the better-performing suppliers. Companies are starting to track every touch-point with a supplier, gathering qualitative information through surveys to gain much more insight into value and transaction costs. Service-level metrics are becoming much more detailed and continuously monitored (with direct data feeds from the services supplier) to gain insight into the supplier’s processes and capabilities that underlie their delivered quality and value.

Manage and shape demand: The demand drivers for many services are fragmented and hard to pin down – definitely not available in a production forecast. Since service prices tend to rise over time, it pays to focus on controlling costs through internal demand management, rather than just increasing pressure on suppliers each year. Demand for services is also malleable, as which tasks performed internally versus by the supplier can be changed if needed. Investigating internal demand drivers and supplier interaction processes can lead to ways to reduce time and costs by shifting activities to/from the supplier, redrawing the process boundaries, and eliminating non-value-add tasks performed by either party.

Build tighter linkages into suppliers’ systems: In the direct goods world, linking into the suppliers’ inventory, logistics, and production systems is a now-common practice. In services, however, this is much less prevalent. In addition to pulling service-level metrics from the supplier (such as call and incident tracking information for call-center outsourcers), companies are adding system integrations for requisitions, deliverables, and invoices to greatly reduce transaction costs and eliminate the “echo-chamber” interaction costs of haggling over invoices post-delivery. Going forward, there is emerging interest in linking into suppliers’ availability, skill capability, and project tracking systems to better optimize delivery processes, and a desire for better collaboration tools throughout the lifecycle of interactions with the supplier.

Invest more in supplier discovery and development: Most large companies have too many services supplier relationships, so supplier consolidation is the first effort. However, in order to keep up with the state-of-the-art in purchased services, we see a need to provide better tools for finding and starting up relationships with high-quality emerging services suppliers. Along the same lines, companies will need to more proactively develop niche and high-performing services suppliers in the upcoming years.

Thanks again to John Martin for this insightful post on The Future of Sourcing … Services.