Category Archives: Market Intelligence

UX is More Than a Functional Experience, It’s a Program Experience

This year we’ve attacked the UX in Sourcing and Procurement solutions, and for e-Auctions, e-RFX, Optimization, Spend Analytics, and Procure-to-Pay in particular. This was great, but if you really understand Sourcing and Procurement, you know that it’s more than just a set of (integrated) modules with a great user experience. It’s a plan, a process, and, most importantly, a program.

Those organizations that are reasonably advanced in their sourcing journey know that the best success often comes from a category management program that starts with category identification and opportunity assessment, proceeds through a sourcing plan, and then the sourcing process, which culminates in a contract, that then flips over to Procurement which issues a purchase order, receives one or more goods receipts and invoices, issues approvals, and, finally payments. This is all part of a program that works against a project plan and one or more category goals.

This project plan also needs to be managed. Hopefully within your S2P suite, but if not, in another tool that, hopefully, integrates with the S2P suite or, in some cases, the organization’s mix of best-of-breed Supply Management applications. But, as one might surprise by now, such a tool must be immensely usable and provide a great user experience if it is to be used.

However, this is easier said than done because simply slapping a great user experience on a traditional project management tool is not going to cut it. This is because the types of programs that revolve around Sourcing, SRM, Analytics, and P2P are considerably different and require functionalities considerably above and beyond a typical project management application. In other words, slapping a category management theme onto a project management or sourcing application won’t make the grade.

This is why the next UX series produced by the doctor will be on Program Management UX, with the P2P posts co-authored by the revolutionary. So keep a watchful eye out for this one — it might help you understand some of the key functionality that should be included in your S2P platform, which many platforms are still missing today.

One Hundred and Twenty Years Ago Today …

London licenses taxicabs. Just a few short months after electric battery-powered taxicabs became available on the streets of London in August the same year.

Just goes to show that once a government succumbs to the winds of change, they are fast to regulate and tax it.

In other words, if the North American government ever truly accepts not only e-Commerce but e-Procurement, you might see a model where all major transactions have to either flow though a government site or, more likely, be immediately reported to a government site and taxes paid immediately (so they don’t lose their share of the digital pie).

M&A: And the Mania Continues …

Our last post on the subject was on how The M&A Mania Ain’t Over Yet. In it, we had two words of advice. Don’t Panic! Those two words are more important now than ever now that Jaggaer has bought BravoSolution. Big has bought big to become bigger and fatten the bottom line, most likely dancing to the tune of the private equity firm looking to get a return on its investment by either growing the company big enough to take public (again) or by making a global offering attractive enough to a bigger private equity firm.

And while this could be very good for the private equity firm, is it good for the customers? Let’s think about this. There are three things that make an M&A attractive:

  • More Customers
    Check, and check. The first check for the sizeable customer base that BravoSolution has. The second check for the fact that most of this customer base is in Europe, where Jaggaer is not well established (with the exception of Jaggaer Direct as a result of its Pool4Tool acquisition).
  • Synergy
    Either in customer base (for cross-selling) or in application (for broader platform). Check, but no check. There is a theoretical synergy in customer base (as both organizations sell to Procurement organizations), but there is not only a geographic divide, but a bit of a cultural divide as well (as most customers tend to buy from organizations with similar cultures, and BravoSolution and Jaggaer have, at least historically, considerably different cultures with regards to solution development and delivery.
  • Cost Reduction
    If there is an overlap in personnel, systems, locations, or other cost centers that can be reduced, then there is a great opportunity for cost reduction. Check, Check, and Check! First of all, while Jaggaer needs to be on all continents, and needs multiple offices on big continents (like the USA, EU, etc.), but only so many. There can be office reduction. This would be a big savings. They now have 2 of just about every Purchasing system — one set can be retired (in time). This would be a big savings. And as for personnel — while customer support personnel cannot be reduced (without losing customers, which negates reason one for M&A), tech support and sales and back office personnel can — especially when one set of systems is retired.

Now, we can’t be sure any of the changes hypothesized above will materialize, but unless some do, how will Jaggaer realize the potential benefits of the merger? It’s not time for panic, but it is time for thought. And the formation of a plan, or at least a back-up plan, if you are a current, or potential, Jaggaer or BravoSolution customer and someday it is announced that your solution, local support office, or team is being retired.

30 Days Left to Get Your Supply Management Solution Budget In Order …

… unless, of course, you are a government / defense contractor and on the government fiscal year. But we’ll assume you’re not, and move forward.

There isn’t an organization in existence that has a complete Supply Management Solution platform, not even an organization in the Gartner Top 25 or the Hackett Group top 8% even though they are much, much closer than the average organization. Most (average) organizations only have part of the Source-to-Pay spectrum covered, and almost half don’t even have a modern solution at all.

And, as we have indicated previously, this cannot continue. But you can’t afford everything, and big bang implementations usually go up in a big bang. So you need to start by figuring out what you need first, what the average price point is for the solutions most likely to meet your need, and get that in the budget.

And that will require a good ROI argument, which needs to be a believable one. Which means you have to understand the full impact of the acquisition, implementation, and usage cost of a new purchase, as well as the time it will take to reach the ROI the solution will achieve. For example, while an optimization-backed sourcing platform will identify 10%+ savings on the top 30% of spend, delivering at least 3% to the bottom line, if the contracts are three years, it will take 3 years to realize the savings, and not all will materialize without a proper Procurement platform that insures the contract is properly executed.

Plus, when it comes to Sourcing platforms, even if you pay a monthly SaaS subscription, there will still be the integration costs with the current platforms (including ERP), the training costs for the intended users, any customization costs that result, and delayed ROI costs as it will take a few months to get all users on the platform, which means that it will take a few months before significant savings are identified, and a few more months before savings start to materialize.

The savings will materialize, and the ROI over the long term will be considerable, but the best way to get the necessary budget for a Sourcing, Procurement, SRM, or Analytics platform is to be honest about the cost and the time to significant ROI, which will typically be 6 months to 12 months, minimum, not the first 3 to 6 months like some vendors will promise. But there was a time company’s would take the long, 5 to 10 year, view, and if you take the long view, you will save Millions, maybe Billions (if you are a Fortune 100).

And that can be true of any best of breed (conglomerate) Sourcing, Procurement, SRM, or Analytics platform. So, get your well researched, well thought out, arguments.

If You’re Still Negotiating With the Carrot and the Stick …

… you’re not getting anyone’s attention but good ol’ Bugs. And, generally speaking, giving all the hijinks he causes, it’s best if his attentions are focussed on your competition.

So how should you be negotiating? With facts. Preferably binders of facts (but they can be in e-form on your tablet — no need to kill trees unnecessarily.)

Facts that show:

  • you know what the product should cost to make,
  • you know what margin should be healthy for the supplier,
  • you know what value-add services the supplier can offer more economically than you,
  • you know what performance metrics are reasonable, and
  • you know what the market offers are right now (and whether or not the supplier can beat them).

Suppliers don’t respond to sticks if they believe you really need them and they can get away with what they want, nor do they respond to carrot if other customers seem more enticing. Plus, they will wonder what crawl-out shelter you just climbed out of because no one from a modern organization negotiates like that anymore.

Especially if they are a typical sales organization that is all about the relationship (and talking win-win even if their definition of win-win is win for the organization, win for them at bonus time) or a more modern, Gen-X led, millennial-influenced organization that’s all about the synergy.

In the first case there will be value pitches followed by claims no one can do what they do as well and lots of smooth talk to get you off guard for when they indicate that their price (even if it has a margin that is twice industry average) is really as good as it gets and the latter will try to entice a deal from the synergy.

But regardless of organization type, every organization will respond to fact-based negotiations. With fact-based negotiations, they can’t hide fat margin behind claims of high cost, high-value, or synergy as the only way they can dispute your models, metrics, and market insight is to provide their true costs (or own research from third parties if they expect their costs to rise over the expected contract term).

And the above isn’t that hard to gather. It might take some elbow grease and a category expert, but once you’ve built the proper model and identified the proper data sources, it’s quick to update.

All you need for a fairly accurate should cost model is:

  • the bill of material break down
  • the typical energy required to produce one unit (kWh)
  • the typical labour required (labourer hours by labourer type)
  • the average industry margin

If it’s a contract manufactured product, you have this, if not, you can get an industry expert to help you craft a typical bill of materials. Your current supplier, or an industry expert, should be able to roughly estimate the typical energy overhead (based on typical production process). Similarly, your current supplier (or industry expert) should know average labour requirements against the production line.

All that’s left is understanding the acquisition cost of the materials, energy, and labour. Most raw materials are traded on exchanges, so it’s easy to get an average market cost. Most countries either have electrical utilities as state owned organizations or as highly regulated private organizations with standard prices per kWh. And most countries or labour bureaus compile average labour rates. Industry insight gives you standard margins, and you can see it’s not hard to build a reasonably accurate should cost model with expertise and elbow grease. And since the only way for a supplier to challenge it is to provide their costs, you can get even the model more accurate if their costs are actually higher. (And if they don’t challenge your model, then its relatively accurate or their costs are actually lower. In the latter case, they might get a bit more margin than you want to give in negotiations, but chances are you’ve lowered your cost as well with the model.)

This just leaves an identification of what services they can likely offer more economically, which again comes down to good modelling, and performance metrics (along with cost / profit impacts), which you should be gathering across your supply base. Then you can negotiate for better performance metrics (with penalties if they are not met) with an incumbent that isn’t doing as well as they should and wants to keep the business, or baseline metrics with a new supplier that wants the business based on current average performance across the supply base for the metric in question.

So gather your facts, and give yourself a true edge in negotiations.