Category Archives: Market Intelligence

The (Board) Gamer’s Guide to Supply Management Part III: Munchkin

I’m ecstatic to continue this one-of-a-kind summer series that will help you whether you are just interested in finding out about this new and exciting career opportunity, or ready to take your Supply Management career to the next level. As I said in my last post, learning Supply Management can be infinitely more fun than watching paint dry. And when you can grasp a lot of the basic concepts by playing the right mix of strategic (and sometimes tactical) board games with your friends, it’s a blast and a half!

While this might be a good time to move on to a game like Puerto Rico, an economic city building game where you select a trade (such as captain, mayor, trader, settler, craftsman, or builder) in an effort to achieve the greatest prosperity (and highest respect) by shipping goods, building impressive cities, and managing their colonists and plantations, it’s still a little advanced for our budding gamers, so we are going to select a different game for our third post. Plus, while Ticket to Ride (Part I) helped us understand the capacity limitations of the shipping industry and The Settlers of Catan (Part II) helped us to understand the balance between supply and demand in limited commodities, they both limited our view to a competitive market where each player was acting independently at all times. (And while trading is a big part of Catan, your opponent only traded when it was in his interest to do so, and partnerships were never formed.)

In Steve Jackson’s Munchkin, we still have the situation where every player is out for herself, but where players will often unite for brief periods of time to accomplish a goal where there are mutual rewards (or bribes) to be made. Plus, as we will quickly discover, Munchkin brings a reality to gaming that neither Ticket to Ride nor Catan bring to the table. And most importantly, we have another fantastic TableTop episode where Wil Wheaton (who still claims to be In Exile) introduces the game with the help of the game’s creator, Steve Jackson (and Felicia Day and Sandeep Parikh). As long as he keeps churning them out, we are going to take advantage of the priceless gifts that Mr. Wheaton has granted us.

When it comes to Munchkin, as Wil Wheaton says,

The goal is very simple. Get from level one all the way up to level ten. To do that we’re going to kick in doors. Bam! And fight the monsters that we find behind them. Now, if a monster is too tough for us, we can ask our friends for help. Maybe they’ll make it less scary. . . . Of course if a monster looks like it’s getting to be too easy for us to defeat, those same ‘friends” will turn around and make that monster harder for us to defeat. . . . If we are able to defeat the monster and don’t have to run away, we’re going to go up a level and we get to take one of its treasures, always something that helps us. . . . Munchkin is a game where you really find out who your friends are. Generally, not the people sitting around the table with you.

In addition, Munchkin is a turn-based game where, at the start of your turn, you may play as many cards from your hand as you’d like, trade items in play with other players, or sell items for levels. Then you have to kick in the door, where you will generally find a monster (which must be fought immediately), a curse (which applies to you immediately), or another card that may be put in your hand and saved for later or played immediately. Other cards are generally monster modifiers (that make them weaker or stronger), a race (such as dwarf, elf, orc, etc. that gives you a special ability), a class (such as warrior, wizard, bard, etc. that gives you a special skill), or another special card that can be played at a later time. If you fight a monster, you either beat it (with help), or you try to run away. If you beat it, you get its treasurer. If you don’t, you suffer bad stuff, such as losing a level, losing an item, or, in some cases, you die. If it’s not a monster, you get to look for trouble (and play a monster from your hand to fight, if you have one), or loot the room (where you take a second door card and put it in your hand).

It’s representative of our job many days because we never know what interruption (probably caused by a gremlin) we are going to have to deal with, and we never know if we’re going to be able to conquer it without help. Sometimes we can solve the problem with help from within our organization, but sometimes we will need help from our competition. And this is where Munchkin gets interesting when compared to Ticket to Ride or The Settlers of Catan. Maybe when our primary distributor ‘loses’ the shipment of tantalum we need to keep our mobile phone capacitor production line operational, we can call up our competitor a few miles away and find out that they will sell us some of their excess inventory (at a mark-up) that will keep our production line going until we can get a replacement shipment. But maybe they will instead take advantage of this moment of weakness to lock up even more supply from their distributor, in the hopes that our production line will stay down for weeks and give them a chance to leapfrog us on New Product Introduction into the rapidly evolving mobile market place. We don’t know. Munchkin is one of the few games that will help us understand the intricacies of a co-opetitive market (which may not be a good thing for your supply chain, as per this post).

The trading aspect introduces us to the ways that we can barter inventory when cash is at a premium, the selling aspect (treasure for levels) introduces us to the ways we can profit off of excess inventory if we are smart about it, and the cursing aspect introduces us to the dirty tricks we might have to deal with from shady suppliers. Plus, classes demonstrate how skills acquired through education can improve your capabilities and races demonstrate how specializations in certain functions, processes, or technologies can take you up the Procurement ladder. And, just like in real life, if you don’t have enough excitement in your job, you can always look for trouble and hedge your bets (by buying on the spot market or, even worse, hedging) or, if you see a supplier or competitor in trouble, you can, in effect, loot the room.

It’s a great game. And since, as Wil says,

Sometimes you don’t care about someone’s rich personal backstory. You don’t care about a character’s precious little hopes and dreams. Sometimes you just want to kick in the door, kill the monster, and take it’s treasure without any of that pesky role playing.

So, without further ado, it’s time to kick in the door, mutilate the bodies, and backstab each other as we fight to see which one of us in the biggest munchkin.

Is it Time to Stop Blaming Governments and Start Blaming Economists for All the Economic Turmoil?

How many recessions has North America had in the last two decades? How long has the Eurozone crisis been going on? Does anyone know anymore? It’s been nothing but doom and gloom for years. Doom and gloom which immediately followed periods of growth that was too rapid or optimism that was too unfounded. What the heck happened?

We can blame the governments for failing to keep the currencies in check and failing to invest in innovation and jobs, we can blame the private sector for trying to rampage out of control, or we can blame the economists who give everyone bad advice. Maybe that’s what we should be doing. According to some very recent research, by Emre Soyer and Robin Hogarth, which is being published in a special section in the July-September 2012 issue of the International Journal of Forecasting, we have “The Illusion of Predictability” [preprint] (How Regression Statistics Mislead Experts) which can be succinctly summarized by saying “economists are overconfident [and] so are you” (as summarized by Justin Fox over on the HBR blogs).

Soyer and Hogarth did a study with 257 economists who were asked to read about a regression analysis that related independent variable X to dependent variable Y and then answer questions about the probabilities of various outcomes. When the results were presented in the typical manner (as average outcomes followed by a few error terms), the economists did a really bad job of answering the questions. They paid too much attention to the averages, and too little to the uncertainties inherent in them, thereby displaying too much confidence. Moreover, they did only slightly better when they were shown the numerical results plus scatter graphs. Only the economists who were shown only the graphs actually got most of the answers [close to] right.

In other words, when the data is presented in standard form, statistically literate experts are just as likely to glom (glom glom) onto the point estimate and discount the uncertainty as innumerate journalists and make the same mistakes. (They could use Pinky and the Brain’s refresher refresher lesson on statistics.) Ouch!

We in Supply Management know that the world is often much less predictable than economists would lead us to believe — having to deal with the effects of demand spikes, supply shortages, currency fluctuations, labour strikes, and natural disasters on a(n almost) weekly basis — and that no economic model is going to capture the full extent of the reality of the situation. It’s too bad that an average economist doesn’t, because if (s)he did, then maybe the advice wold be better, and the markets would, as a result of more rational actions, be more stable and make our job a little easier. In the interim, we can do our part by making sure that we help procure any services that require an economist or economic analysis and insure that such economist or group has a tendency for presenting, and analyzing data, the right way without unnecessary exuberance, one way or the other. Because this result, captured in the preprint, is scary:


72% of the participants believe that for an individual to obtain a positive outcome with 95% probability, a small X (X < 10) would be enough, given the regression results. A majority state that any small positive amount of X would be sufficient to obtain a positive outcome with 95% probability. However, in order to obtain a positive outcome with 95% probability, a decision maker should choose approximately X=47.

Simple math says that the majority of the participants were off by a factor of 5 (or more). Ouch! Late last year the BBC ran a point of view article that said we should beware of experts when it comes to running things. Maybe they were right!

Informationalization Is Important

Simply put, the more informed you are, the better you are going to be able to source and procure. And this recent article over on the HBR blogs on why you need to integrate data into products, or get left behind just scratches the surface.

As the post notes, virtually every product and service can be made more valuable through informationalization. The GPS example provided is classic. Turn-by-turn directions make the car more valuable as the driver can keep his eyes on the road, get to his destination faster, and, during delivery, avoid left turns that just lead to extended idling at busy intersections. And, as predicted by Stewart Taggert, half of the value in the delivery of a shipping container from halfway around the world would be in the data associated with the container. Good information allows you to calculate in-transit time, and associated costs, loading and unloading costs, storage costs, insurance costs (as you can appropriately determine the chance of accidental loss or theft), etc.

But the best example of the value of informationalization is how it allows you to optimize your sourcing decisions. The more you know about your product options, shipping options, associated costs, and the inherent value of each product versus your other options, the more accurately you can model your options. The more accurately you can model your options, the better chance you have of determining the solution with the lowest cost, the lowest risk, the highest value, and the best value (defined as risk reduction, profit generation capability, etc — whatever makes sense) to cost ratio. And this is how leading Supply Management organizations can save 12%, on average, off-the-top in an optimization-enabled sourcing event — and even more if they collaboratively work with their peers to identify all of the options that may be available and all of the associated tradeoffs. As pointed out in SI’s recent paper on “Top Ten Technologies for Supply Management Savings Today”, integrated, collaborative sourcing can often identify savings opportunities of up to 30% or 40% on categories that were exhaustively combed for savings in the past.

Plus, good information allows your organization to:

  1. constantly improve products and services by way of the fact that you are able to
  2. collect more relevant, timely, accurate, detailed, and integrated data.

And when you have relevant, timely, accurate, detailed, and integrated data, you can take out your best-of-breed data analysis tool, use the tips and tricks SI outlined in it’s free e-book (co-authored by Bernard Gunther of Lexington Analytics, now a division of Opera Solutions) on Spend Visibility: An Implementation Guide, and extract even more value for the organization by optimizing not just Supply Management spend, but utilization, service, warranties, Marketing & Legal spend, and every other product and service activity that burns capital and/or creates organizational value.

For a Good Lesson in e-Procurement System Selection, Ask Discount Tires.

This winter, Chief Executive ran an article on The Synergy Mirage: A Case Study that had a great lesson for every Supply Management team looking to select an e-Procurement system with the intent that anyone in the organization who wants to order something will use it. The lesson was simple:

Customers don’t want to buy new tires. They need to buy new tires. It’s expensive and it takes time out of their day. As a competitor, [Chairman] [Bruce] Halle benefited from making the process somewhat less expensive and taking less of the customer’s time. He also spent extra time cleaning up the shop, including the bathrooms, to make the customer visit a bit more comfortable. Customers appreciated the discount that came with the off-brand products Halle offered, but they also appreciated the opportunity to leave as soon as possible.

Similarly, in your organization:

Administrative assistants don’t want to place re-orders for toner cartridges. Engineers don’t want to have to order new workstations and business analysts don’t want to have to buy reams of papers. And office managers definitely don’t want to order pens. They need toner, computers, paper and pens to do their jobs (and make sure their coworkers can do theirs). Finding the best value for the organization is not their strength and it takes too much time out of their already too busy day. They want a process that is easy and quick. They want to find what they want as fast as possible, place the order, make it someone else’s problem, and get back to their job. And if they have to do it anyway, they would like an experience that is clean, comfortable, and relatively stress free. (And if they have to fill out 17 fracking forms to procure a single pencil they have two choices: pull out their hair and go postal in the classic sense, or just not do it.) They appreciate a tool that simplifies their life and lets them get back to their job as soon as possible.

So if you want to be the organization with 90%+ e-Procurement system penetration (as opposed to the one with 30% to 40% e-Procurement system penetration), you better make sure that whatever e-Procurement system you select is trivially easy to use and designed to make the location and ordering of a particular item quick and easy. Otherwise, you’ll just be buying more shelf-ware. There’s a reason that companies like b-pack, BravoSolution, Coupa, Iasta, and iValua are tearing up the middle market. They get that systems have to be easy to use. And there’s a single reason in particular that BravoSolution is making waves in the Fortune X where only Ariba and Emptoris used to play and that Coupa has reached the upper end of the Mid-Market (and started to sneak into a few Fortune X’s) in five-short years. Their systems are about ease of use. In all of these examples, their systems are about allowing a user to do what they need to do and get back to the more important aspects of their job. And, most importantly, their systems are about customer success.

And that’s also why you are going to see new waves forming in the Fortune X. Companies like hubwoo, IBX, and Wallmedian in particular are each going to make a [big] splash as their focus on helping Fortune X clients stuck on SAP get more value from their ERP system (from a Supply Management Perspective) with a lot less pain is going to start paying off as SAP gets stuck in the Fusion quagmire trying to integrate its latest acquisition. Watch for Wallmedian in particular, a name you’re probably unaware of on this side of Atlantic, to come over and pull a BravoSolution in the Fortune X SAP user base. (Remember when we didn’t know who BravoSolution was on this side of the Atlantic? It wasn’t that long ago and now with Ariba swallowed, they will soon be one of the biggest stand alone names out there in the Supply Management space.)

How Do You Find an Innovative New Vendor?

Brian Sommer over on ZDNet just ran a great post on how to easily identify the up and coming innovative vendors in the space. All you have to do is look at who the big established players are trash talking! After all, if the company isn’t innovative, they have nothing to fear from the competitor, and will say something like “yes they also have a solution suite that could potentially help you, but” … “they are missing these key features that we have found to be instrumental to customer success” or “we have done more implementations in your space” or “we have a more mature professional services organization” or “we fit better with the platforms and processes that you have in place” or “we are more committed to customer success” or “we have won more awards proving the maturity of our solution” and just shrug them off. But if the company is innovative and poses a real threat, they will try to trash-talk it out of your candidate pool. And they will use predictable language like “what they are offering is a cool feature, not an application” or “they’re inconsequential” or “their solution is immature and / or will never catch on“. These phrases are your first clue that this is a vendor you should be looking at. It might not be mature enough to meet all of your needs today, but maybe if you can bolt on the innovative new features they are offing to your existing ERP, you can, with a little elbow grease, extract more value and, as the company grows, be the first to take advantage of their new features and applications as an early adopter preferred customer.

And not only did Brian do a great job of pointing this out, he also created a great table that summarizes all of the common phrases an established, fairly un-innovative, company will use to trash talk an innovative startup in its infancy, a rapidly growing new competitor, and an upstart that’s all grown up now. And then, to complete the picture, he also points out what they say when the decide to acquire the grown up upstart because it has a more innovative solution.

Click this link to read Brian’s full post on the Software Smack Talk Playbook. It’s awesome.