Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Decideware: Taking Agency Expense Management to the Next Level!

As per our recent posts, Decideware are the Agency Performance Management Experts, having brought end-to-end agency lifecycle management (Part I, Part II, and Part III) to your agency-based supply chain.

Agency-based spend is an often overlooked spend category because it’s creative (and marketing doesn’t want to give it up), outsourced, and typically hands-off (because all marketing wants is the end product — print, radio, tv, or web advertisement, campaign, etc.).

However, ignoring this spend is costly, especially if you are doing a lot of production work — because the amount that is being spent through your agencies on production is often a lot more than the creative agency fees. But this is just the tip of the iceberg. When you drill down, you often find that if you are using a lot of different agencies for your different marketing initiatives, there will often be overlap not only in the types of production companies your agencies use to create your advertisements and campaigns, but in the actual companies themselves. This means that if you can identify common tier-2 providers used by your agencies, and identify potential preferred providers, you can negotiate with those providers for preferred rates to be on your preferred provider list that you provide to the agencies (who can be told that they can only use providers for identified services from your list).

Plus, because Decideware’s new Production Management Module allows you to track all costs down to the individual project and provider level, you can make sure that the preferred rates are actually being offered to you. And if the project is large enough, or the volume of work increases, you can ask for an additional discount and track the negotiated savings as well. It’s a great way to identify cost-savings opportunities when you don’t need the absolute best provider. After all, just about any print house can do a print job and any production studio can film an advertisement. This allows you to save on the “commodity purchases” and spend those dollars on the “creative” side instead, where you are likely to receive the most value for your money.

The new Decideware Production Module is a great complement to their existing Statement of Work module (discussed in Decideware: An End-to-End Agency Lifecycle Management Solution Part II) and now, for the first time, you can truly undertake multi-tier end-to-end agency-based cost management and really get your advertising and marketing spends under control.

The Production Module, currently in beta and scheduled for full-release at the start of next quarter, is similar to the scope-of-work module in that it walks the user through the full production RFX and cost estimate workflow. After the user defines the project metadata (type, scope, timeframe, org unit, etc.), she selects the users who will participate (in editorial, view, or approval mode), defines the work products (and who is responsible for overseeing their definition), selects the vendors who will be allowed to bid, defines the desired cost breakdown (by phase and element), defines the contract terms, and then, finally, defines the approval process. Then the project is launched and vendors provide their bid package with the desired cost breakdown, which includes an identification of the sub-tier suppliers who will be used to complete the work.

It’s an easy to use and well-thought out solution for getting your rampant advertising budget under control.

Stagnant Sourcing, Part II


Today’s guest post is from Joe Payne, Vice President of Professional Services at Source One Management Services, LLC and co-author of “Managing Indirect Spend: Enhancing Profitability Through Strategic Sourcing”.


In yesterday’s post, Joe began to address the fact that despite the clear path laid out before them — the path of “take a strategic approach, see positive results” — many procurement groups are still falling behind and failing to do just this. He noted that while the reality of the situation is different for every organization, there are some trends that weigh more heavily than others and discussed two of these trends. In today’s post, he discusses two more.

Lack of Skill Sets and Vision

While everyone might jump on board and say they do not have the proper resources, this reason is a little harder for some to admit. A large portion of procurement groups are operating without the analytical skills and foresight necessary to implement more strategic initiatives. While some might see this as the result, or the validation, of Jack Welch’s infamous quote, it is also due to the traditional role procurement currently plays or has played for most of the department’s existence.

In many companies, procurement is nothing but a rubber-stamp — just another step in the issuance of a purchase order. In others, they may have implemented a three-bid process or another similar purchase control method to try and secure savings, at which point they become viewed as not a rubber stamp but as a hindrance — not a step in the issuance of a purchase order, but a hurdle. And I will stop for a second and explain that procurement is not always pigeonholed into this tactical role because it is all they can do. This tactical limitation is often just as much an indictment of a failure by management to capitalize on the full abilities of all of its resources as it is a statement on the limited capabilities of procurement professionals.

Skills carried over from education and prior experience are not like riding a bicycle. These skills fade and fall away. This limited role, when performed for a long enough period, can limit the effectiveness of any prior analytical skills that fall outside the needs of the assigned role. Luckily, one of the benefits attributed to the rise of Supply Chain Management programs at major universities is the resultant increase in incoming supply chain personnel with college-honed analytical skills tailored to the procurement industry.

Procurement may soon be equipped with the skilled resources needed for strategic changes.

Management Is Not Interested

A final hurdle for procurement groups looking to make a strategic leap is disinterested leadership. Executive management, whose approval is and would be needed for a procurement group to “resource-up” and/or take on new challenges, might not think procurement is capable of such initiatives. Alternatively, leadership may be disinterested due to their inability to see the benefits to procurement taking on strategic endeavors. This can be frustrating, but it can be solved.

Disinterested management has to be persuaded, and the easiest way to persuade is through a prolonged effective internal marketing campaign. Reports should not be seen as an administrative chore, but rather as an advertisement for a procurement department. Operating transparently should not be seen as micromanaging, but as a way to actively show interested parties how effective the procurement department can be. Other successful procurement groups — when they make the news — can also be used as leverage to convince an otherwise-disinterested leadership group that strategic procurement endeavors can be worth the investment.

Additional marketing methods could include a training program designed to mitigate the frustration that comes from procurement’s involvement with some stakeholders. One of the most effective methods is securing a “bell cow”. A procurement department wishing to be given a more strategic role should identify an influential stakeholder and work to get that person onboard with their efforts. They should then use that person as a cheerleader for the group.

Wrapping Up

There is no single reason why procurement groups do not undertake strategic endeavors, just as there is no single party at fault. However, the evidence is mounting that those procurement groups that do not set themselves up strategically will face a widening gap between themselves and the best-in-class operations.

Thanks again, Joe!

Stagnant Sourcing, Part I


Today’s guest post is from Joe Payne, Vice President of Professional Services at Source One Management Services, LLC and co-author of “Managing Indirect Spend: Enhancing Profitability Through Strategic Sourcing”.

Late last year, I wrote about the “evolution” of procurement — how the department’s practices have moved from simple purchasing, to strategic sourcing, to category management, and to a level of control and strategic involvement that I called “change management”. In the conversations that stemmed from the article, both on- and off-line, I heard from many people out there that organizations don’t need to worry about “change management”, or even “category management”, yet. Many purchasing groups still struggle with implementing any strategic change at all.

This is troubling. If you have read anything related to procurement/supply chain in the last decade, you know that procurement’s ongoing success is tied to strategic improvements. Not only has this been preached, but it has been realized at best in class companies like Apple and Toshiba, where procurement took on a strategic role, optimized supply chain operations to the extreme benefit of the company, and saw executive leadership incorporate procurement leaders more openly. As you are probably aware, both Apple and Toshiba’s current CEOs were formerly CPOs at their respective organizations.

So with a clear path laid out before them — the path of “take a strategic approach, see positive results” — why are so many procurement groups falling behind and failing to do this? The reality is the situation is different for every organization, but over time I have seen a few trends that weigh more heavily than others.

They Think They Are

One of the most common objections lobbied from stakeholders when Source One is brought in to pitch our services is “We are already doing that” or, worse, “We tried that already and it didn’t work”. If brought out early into the pitch, it is clear that the objections are being lobbied by someone protecting their turf, or who sees our being there as an indication of their poor performance. As you drill in on these concerns, you will normally find they are an indication that there is a fundamental confusion regarding what strategic endeavors actually entail.

So, to clarify: A three-bid process is not strategic sourcing. Subscribing to an index on its own is not sufficient market intelligence to make informed decisions. As I have stated previously here on SI, supplier management software is not strategic supplier relationship management.

It is inefficient to continue to dedicate resources to an issue if you believe it is resolved. Procurement groups that mistakenly believe they are engaging strategically are not going to commit resources to actual strategic endeavors, and their failure to act is to their detriment.

Lack of Resources

If a procurement group is cognizant of the tactical nature of their current practices, they still face an obvious hurdle. Despite the numerous ads and pitches from software and service providers, strategic initiatives require significant resources to design, implement, and carry out. These are resources that most procurement groups simply do not have.

We did a survey of procurement professionals a little over a year ago and released the results throughout the spring and summer of last year. The first paper was on resource shortages, and the big number was that 30% of all procurement groups feel they are understaffed. Digging deeper for statistics more relevant to strategic endeavors, 34% of all polled procurement groups have zero resources dedicated to strategic activities, and 52% of all polled groups have less than half of their resources working on strategic endeavors.

While the need for strategic action may be evident, many procurement groups simply do not have the resources available to commit to the development of these long-term strategic initiatives.

“Engineers who can’t add, operators who can’t run their equipment, and accountants who can’t foot numbers become purchasing professionals”
— Jack Welch

Thanks, Joe! I bet our readers can’t wait for Part II tomorrow!

The Board Gamers Guide to Supply Management Part XIV: Le Havre

You’ve mastered Agricola and feel that you are an agricultural supply master and after sailing Upon a Salty Ocean, you feel you are also a master of logistics and market timing. But can you handle the full meal deal? Especially when you not only have to balance food and resource acquisition with trading and energy needs? Le Havre, an economic construction strategy game, adds a new dimension to put your supply management strategies to the test: having to balance the use of resources for food and the use of resources for energy to power ships, brickworks, iron mills, abattoirs, bakeries, and smokehouses which allow you to acquire and trade resources, convert raw materials into useable building materials, and turn raw fish and grain into food.

You win Le Havre by acquiring the most wealth over the course of the game, and you acquire wealth by collecting, selling, and using goods and by buying and constructing ships and buildings which have a monetary value. This sounds easy enough, but it is a significant supply management challenge as you have to continuously make enough money to cover the entry costs to the buildings you need (but don’t own), acquire enough raw materials that can be used to produce energy to power the buildings that produce food and building materials, and produce enough food to feed your constantly growing workforce at the end of every round (just like your payroll for an increasingly growing workforces increases in real life), which requires more and more food as the game goes on (just as your corporate workforce also grows as your company grows and you acquire more property and trade more resources).

Although you want to focus on acquiring buildings and building ships, as this is generally what helps you accumulate the most wealth (especially if you leave out the special buildings), you’re constantly having to interrupt your strategy to acquire food to feed your workers, raw materials for future buildings, and energy sources. The last thing you want to do is run out of food, because then you have to buy food, and if you don’t have enough money you either have to fire sale a building (if you have one) at half of its value or borrow, and every loan accrues interest every round (and there’s no limit on debt or interest, just like there’s no limit in the real world).

The game consists of a fixed number of rounds (defined as 14 rounds for 2 players, 18 rounds for 3 players, and 20 rounds for 4 or 5 players), each of which consists of 7 turns. On each turn, you take one of two actions:

  1. take an offer from the harbour or
    on each player’s turn, new goods arrive in the harbour and are added to the appropriate offer space, which the player can take
  2. use one of the available buildings
    which can include the construction firm that allows you to build up to buildings of your own

The base goods that are available as offers for the player to take are:

  • fish
    a food source worth 1 food or 2 food if smoked in the smokehouse
  • wood
    used to construct buildings, ships, or supply 1 energy (via fire); it can supply 3 energy if converted to charcoal in the charcoal kiln
  • clay
    used to construct buildings, it can be upgraded to brick in the brickworks to build more buildings
  • iron
    used to construct buildings or iron ships, it can be upgraded to steel
  • grain
    a harvest good that can be baked into bread (worth two food) at the bakehouse, or used to grow 1 more grain (at the end of the round)
  • cattle
    a harvest good that can be upgraded to meat (worth three food) at the abattoir and hides (for every 2 cattle slaughtered); also, 2+ cattle produce one more cattle at the end of every round

All other goods have to be produced. These include:

  • charcoal: an energy source worth 3 energy produced from wood in the charcoal kiln
  • coke: an energy source worth 10 energy produced from charcoal in the colliery
  • brick: produced from clay in the brickworks
  • steel: produced from iron in the steel mill
  • bread: produced from grain in the bakehouse
  • smoked fish: produced from fish in the smokehouse
  • meat: produced from cattle in the abattoir
  • leather: produced from hides in the tannery

There are 33 standard buildings (and 36 special buildings, which you should ignore until you’ve built up some experience with the base games). In addition to the 9 resource conversion buildings already mentioned, specifically:

  • Abattoir
  • Bakehouse
  • Brickworks
  • Charcoal Kiln
  • Cokery
  • IronWorks
  • Smokehouse
  • Steel Mill
  • Tannery

The following 8 buildings are also available, and necessary:

  • Building Firms: necessary to build buildings
  • Clay Mound: a source of clay
  • Colliery a source of coal
  • Construction Firms: necessary to build buildings
  • Fishery: a source of fish, which is a vital food source
  • Shipping Line: necessary to trade
  • Wharf: necessary to build ships

In order to use a building, you have to pay the entry fee (if you don’t own it), have the energy sources to power it, and one or more of the base goods required to use its ability. In order to build a building, you have to have the resource cost, just like in Agricola. Not to mention, it has to be available. This is the challenge of Le Havre, not only do you have to balance food production (to feed your workers) with resource acquisition (to build), energy production (to power buildings) and ship production (to acquire fish and trade), but you also have to build at the right time, use the buildings at the right time, and trade appropriately. Especially since, just like in the real world, only one player can use one building at a time, take an offer from the harbour and the resource type associated with it, or get points for a particular building or action. And the increasing food costs make the game quite challenging if you don’t adequately prepare for food production from round one. In a four player game, you will need to produce 113 units of food and in a two player game, you will need to produce 177 units of food! A growing workforce needs to be fed (paid)! And you just can’t borrow willy nilly, as the bank only lends money to cover the cost of food (as in Agricola, you can only beg for food).

If you really want to test your supply management mettle, Le Havre is a good game to test it on. While it will likely take twice as long as Agricola to get through a session, it puts your thinking skills and ability to balance supply (offered resources) with demand (building [utilization] costs) in a way that maximizes overall value generated (as the winner is the one that acquires the most wealth by the end of the game). So give Le Havre a go. You might just get more than you negotiated for. (And get one step closer to the ultimate supply management challenge.)

P.S. If you want a good guided introduction to the game, try the iOS version and see if you can become Le Havre’s next titan of industry. The tutorial is good as is the gameplay. (But it won’t give you the challenge of going head to head with your team-mate — all AI’s have preferred strategies and predictable responses when you play them enough.)

Mid-Market Manufacturers and Distributors Need an ERP That Works!

If you’re a mid-market manufacturer or distributor, times are tough.

Your big customers are adopting e-Procurement, Supplier Networks, and e-Invoicing and want to implement end-to-end Procurement and Invoice Automation to streamline processes and reduce operational costs.

Your component and raw material suppliers aren’t always on time, and if you are not on top of your inbound supply chain, a single missed delivery can put you weeks behind and cause you to lose critical orders with big customers.

And if demand suddenly surges or shipments get delayed, sales people and account managers need to know what can and can’t be promised or the company will look bad if multiple account managers collectively make delivery commitments beyond what the organization can deliver.

How do you meet these needs?

If you’re a mid-size organization, you probably can’t afford a full SAP, Oracle, or other Enterprise-class ERP solution with all of the bells and whistles because they come with a seven figure price tag, which leaves you with few choices. Either you choose a lesser ERP, with a price-tag in your price-range, or you go open source, and pay someone to configure and link it to your systems (as most open source never works “out-of-the-box”).

However, all you get with a basic ERP is basic enterprise resource planning functionality. There is no support for e-Invoicing and order automation, no support for advanced real-time forecasting and material planning, and no supply chain visibility.

As a result, in order to service your big customers, you have to either join a Supplier Network, and probably pay a fee for every invoice you send, or use the buyer’s e-Invoicing portal, and have your Accounts Receivable clerk create every invoice twice. After all, while there are lots of e-Procurement and Invoice Automation solutions for buyers, there’s few for distributors and manufacturers because e-order fulfillment systems just aren’t sexy.

In order to keep on top of your supply chain, you have to buy a separate inventory management system on top of a subscription to a real-time supply visibility system to get a grip on what you have, what’s coming in, and where your supply gaps are.

Then, because material planning is not real time and not integrated with order management, you need to buy a separate forecasting system. That’s even more dollars on top of the dollars that you need to spend for inventory management, order management, and the Supplier Network. If the organization could afford all that, the organization could afford the 7-figure ERP system that it couldn’t afford in the first-place.

That’s why mid-sized manufacturers and distributors need an ERP option that works. It has to be affordable, serve as the counterpart to buyer e-Procurement and invoice automation solutions, allow for visibility-based inventory management, provide full order management functionality, and allow for dynamically updated forecasts based upon changes in material availability, delivery dates, and buyer order forecasts.

It’s not sexy, but in order to have an efficient supply chain, all players in the supply chain have to be efficient. If solutions are produced for some players, but not others, the supply chain will continue to only be as strong as the weakest link.