Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Lost Value in Outsourcing

Recently we ran a piece on Hidden Costs in Outsourcing which described many of the costs and overpayments you could be making when outsourcing a function in an effort to reduce costs and increase efficiency, even if the outsourcing contract results in reduced costs and increased efficiency. And while SI believes in win-win agreements, they should be above board with each party only taking its agreed upon share of the pie.

But even if the outsourcer only bills what it agrees to and doesn’t markup rates, charge you for shelfware, pass through unauthorized expenses, or hike the commissions, that doesn’t mean they are delivering all the value they are promised. This happens regularly with “full service” management or technology consulting firms, and the client never knows. But due to his unique position, the doctor knows, and having figured it out, refuses to participate in any project that denies a client organization of the full value they deserve. But this doesn’t prevent it from happening — there’s always someone else who will help the consultancy continue the practice.

What are we talking about?

The simple fact that no single management or technology consultancy, no matter how big, is an expert in every process or system you need, despite what they claim.

And the doctor knows you’re saying, we know this, so we chose the consultancy that makes it a practice to bring in experts when it is weak in an area to get us the information we need when we need it. But do they? Specifically, do they bring in true experts? Do they get the right information? Is it appropriate to your situation?

Some firms do NOT bring in true experts. Why? They have no expertise on staff, and use a model to find experts that is not congruent with what it takes to attract experts. For example, some firms are employing the “network” or “network search” model where they build a “network” of experts they can tap into for help. But this network usually consists of freelancers who self-register and/or who are invited based on automated LinkedIn profile searches. Are these people experts? Some are, but unless they are semi-retired folk looking to keep busy, probably not. Most of the people in these networks are unemployed / self-employed and in need of work. Most experts are too busy to even think about registering on another expert or social network, and will not be there. And experts such as the doctor will not engage with this type of model. The last thing the doctor wants to do is provide an hour of advisory to a Big 6 only to have it turn around, take the information completely out of context, and tell its client to consider vendor X or product Y because the doctor recommended it.

Secondly, some firms do not contract the experts for enough time to get the information they need to truly have an advanced understanding from the market. For example, many of these firms will engage experts for as little as an hour or two and expect to get deep expertise on a market and technology and, at the end of it, understand what vendors to focus on or what technologies to dive into. Then, believing they know where to focus, they will have their interns do research on the specific vendors or technologies and produce deep reports. But interns don’t understand the intricacies that help differentiate similar vendors or similar technologies and can easily fall for marketing hyperbole and overlook deep capability.

Thirdly, as they are not experts, they will not understand the intricacies of your situation, what specifically they should be looking for, and what questions they should be asking the expert, should they actually get one. So whatever they do will be of limited value from the get go.

If a company is engaging a consulting firm for help, the amount situation-specific consulting needed from an expert is significantly more than a few hours. And if all your management consultancy is doing is engaging the expert for as few hours as they think they can get away with, and then assigning a junior consultant to go and do the market research, you’re not getting the value you deserve.

Hidden Costs in Outsourcing

A strategy used by many Sourcing and Procurement organizations to get quick wins is to outsource tactical Procurement operations and/or Category Management to BPOs or expert (niche) consultancies. This can be very successful if the BPO is reasonably efficient in processing compared to the organization or if the expert (niche) consultancy has considerable expertise and can quickly find a lot of savings the organization never could. But that doesn’t mean that you are getting the best value. These organizations are trying to maximize their profit, and if you’re happy with the value you are getting, why should they try to optimize their costs?

Before we continue, let me be specific here — we are NOT attacking the hourly rate for their (top) talent. Good category managers are worth their weight in platinum, and you should expect to pay top dollar for them. But you should also receive top value in exchange, not mid-level value and definitely not mediocre value. But that’s what you could be getting if you are not evaluating these services as closely as you would be evaluating your strategic direct material buys.

And, before we continue, let’s make it clear that while we are focussed on Supply Management, these hidden costs could be found in any outsourcing arrangement — marketing support, legal support, engineering support, etc. So what are the hidden costs?

  • Rate Markup this can take many forms, including A rates for B staff or onshore rates for offshore staff; you could be paying 200/hour for the expert, but a relatively inexperienced mentee could be doing most of the work, or you could be told you are being supported on-shore when really 90% of the work is being offshored to low-cost locales in Eastern Europe
  • Temporary Labour if the provider falls behind, they might hire temporary labour and bill you for it; this is okay if you ask them to, but if they do it without your permission for a fixed-cost task, this is definitely NOT ok
  • Shelfware/Bloatware where you are being billed for software not being used or you are being billed for a suite license when the organization is only using one module
  • Pass-through Expenses some organizations will try to pass through any and all expenses they think they can, even if they require explicit pre-approval or the contract says they are the responsibility of the outsourced company
  • (Hiked) Commissions some organizations will charge-back a percentage of savings, a value fee for a successful value-add negotiation, a percentage of a recovery, etc. this is usually okay as this is usually part of an agreement, but there are usually restrictions — minimum value, maximum percentage, and so on; sometimes an organization will charge commissions beyond what they are allowed to
  • Taxes some organizations will charge taxes based on their locale, taxes you may not be technically required to pay — double check the tax lines carefully

And these common overcharges could be just the tip of the iceberg. So be sure to be as cognizant about sourcing your services relationship as you are about sourcing your strategic products and services.

Supply Market Intelligence … Harder than it Looks Part II

In yesterday’s post, we turned our attention to supply market intelligence which, as the maverick points out, is critical as much for supply risk as it is for value creation. But, as we also pointed out in yesterday’s post, despite the plethora of options, finding the intelligence you need can be difficult. All sources have strengths and weaknesses, so you need to be selective to achieve success. Where should you start?

Suppliers

      • financial statements: if the company is public, they must release a reasonably sufficient level of information for a sound financial assessment
      • customer interviews: if you really want to find out how good a supplier is at providing a product or service, ask a customer!

Internal Sources

      • performance reporting: gather all the hard metrics you can!
      • internal stakeholder interviews: any data they have is real company intelligence data

External Sources

      • price index data: and roll your own forecasting!
      • research services: which collect data relevant to your needs
      • blogs and social media: which offer unsolicited third party opinions and reviews
      • public consumption data: from government contracts and import registries which allow you to understand supply vs demand dynamics

This data will give you a mostly factual, relatively unbiased third party picture of the market and supplier performance in the market. All you need is a platform that can automatically gather, consolidate, project, and advise on it all.

Supply Market Intelligence … Harder than it Looks Part I

Building on our recent risk focus, we turn our attention to supply market intelligence which, as the maverick points out, is critical as much for supply risk as it is for value creation.

It’s critically important, but where do you find the intelligence you need? As pointed out in a Spend Matters (main site) post, there are a number of sources that might yield intelligence, including:

Suppliers

  • company websites
  • financial statements / reports
  • request for information
  • supplier interviews

Internal Sources

  • internal stakeholder interviews
  • performance reporting
  • supplier relationship management (SRM) programs

External Sources

  • news feeds and alerts
  • price index forecasts
  • blog and social media
  • peer companies
  • research services
  • advisory programs

But what’s the right source?

Consider the following downsides:

Suppliers

  • company websites display only what the supplier wants you to see
  • financial statements / reports only display high level summaries, they don’t allow you to identify high spend or high risk suppliers or categories
  • request for information only capture what you ask for, and only what the supplier shares
  • supplier interviews again only capture what you ask for, and only what the supplier representative shares

Internal Sources

  • internal stakeholder interviews capture their expertise and bias
  • performance reporting captures hard metrics, but only what you take the time to capture
  • supplier relationship management (SRM) programs vary by company and supplier

External Sources

  • news feeds and alerts – cover the angles exposed or available to journalists
  • price index forecasts – use in-house algorithms that may or may not be right
  • blog and social media – cover the angles seen by bloggers
  • peer companies – may cover the views of the peers, or may cover the perceptions they want to pass on
  • research services – tend to provide hard data, but on the areas they cover
  • advisory programs – are limited to the expertise of the advisors

So what’s right?

Single Tier Risk Mitigation Strategies Don’t Mitigate Risk

… and, in fact, may increase it!

For example, let’s say that risk analysis identifies a disruption risk from southern china with the primary reason being unpredictable transportation due to labour and provider capacity uncertainty. Let’s also say that Procurement decides a good response to the risk is to just triple inventory and instead of working with a 3 week safety stock, works with a nine week. Problem solved, right? No! Problem exacerbated. Why?

Given that production is not likely to notice an issue and raise a flag until they get down to 1 or 2 weeks of stock, simply increasing stock levels is not going to speed up the time in which Procurement is notified of a potential issue. But even worse, if Procurement raises stock levels, chances are Procurement, or the supplier, will increase shipment sizes and send stock less often. This will increase the amount of time before Procurement could sense a problem because if shipment windows increase from 2 weeks to 6 weeks and a disruption happens one day after a shipment, it will be almost 6 weeks before Procurement identifies it, which could be too late for a recovery. Risk increased.

In fact, most mitigation strategies designed at a single tier actually have the potential to increase risk. Let’s take a few:

  • Dual Sourcing
    without careful planning, both suppliers could use the same Tier 2 source
  • Alternative Design
    that reduces / eliminates the need for one rare material in favour of another doesn’t reduce raw material risk of the other material is just as rare or the acquisition / production cost substantially higher
  • Financial Risk Monitoring
    for shakey suppliers doesn’t catch production shortcuts they might be taking to cut costs that increase risk that could result in catastrophic failures
  • Replacement Product Lines
    chances are the replacement product lines share parts and suppliers … you’ve actually increased risk from a disruption, not decreased it

To truly mitigate risk, you have to go multi-tier and work with your supplier to identify the most likely risks, and how to properly mitigate them.

For example, if the risk is:

  • factory shutdown
    you can work with the supplier to ensure a secondary geographically remote location has the ability to recreate the production line quickly
  • transportation shutdown
    have secondary shipment companies, and ports, lined up and ready to go if primaries go down … be ready to truck or rail longer or even airfreight in emergencies
  • financial stress
    the buyer may need to step in and float operations during new production line setup or new product design
  • raw material unavailability
    the options for alternate supply must be known in advance, as with the options for substitute material

But you’re not going to be able to figure out the right secondary location, transportation options, financial mitigation strategies, or raw material strategies on your own. Don’t try. Work with your strategic suppliers and get it right.