Tough question. Maybe it’s because I don’t want to be another Canadian Idiot (sound warning), after all, every time something goes wrong, all anyone ever does is Blame Canada (sound warning). Or maybe it’s because now that the secret is out, I know I’ll never get to express myself on sixty minutes. Oh well.
Category Archives: Miscellaneous
The Talent Series VII: The Spend Management Talent Game
In his series of posts on The Spend Management Talent Game (Part I* , Part II*, and Part III*) over on Spend Matters, Jason Busch discussed some of the issues that affect an organizations suffering from a talent shortage and offered some advice for identifying talent.
Organizations that lack the necessary talent to compete at the top level in today’s environment often are able to identify results, but have a hard time translating paper-based savings from screen-shot trophies to those that drop to the bottom line. And as we know, opportunities and well negotiated contracts alone do not generate savings, a good follow-through led by a skilled individual is required. And, more significantly, Organizations suffering from talent deficiencies place too much emphasis on checking boxes for boxes sake. As Jason points out, your tools should not drive your processes, your holistic strategic sourcing model compliant with your overall supply chain model should.
So what kind of talent do you need to transform your ogranization from a reactionary technology-driven tactically-focussed organization to a proactive strategic sourcing organization? According to Jason, you should focus on talent with generalist skill sets, raw intellect and EQ (emotional intelligence) over industry and domain knowledge in new hires. It’s essential that they have general problem solving skills that go beyond functional — or even technology — knowledge. According to Jason, a database whiz that can fly through twenty thousand data cells is certainly valuable, but those sets of skills can be taught.
Jason also points out that this talent will need new approaches — and new skills — to thrive in the current market. Gone are the days where you can save money simply by hammering your suppliers, using reverse auctions when market conditions change, and/or passing your increased costs onto your customers. It’s an open market – the best suppliers will go elsewhere, reverse auctions only work, at most, a few times, and customers expect commodity prices to drop, not increase. Today’s procurement professionals need to be able to hedge commodity prices in the supply chain through exchange traded instruments and aggregate and understand commodity risk exposure across operating units to forward buy commodity contracts for strategic suppliers to ensure rupply and reduce maximum risk exposure.
So where do you find this talent?
One option is to look externally – consultants, contractors, and outsourcers. However, in this case, one of the keys to great results becomes management. In Part III, Jason offers some advice. If you are using an outsourcer, look for one that will balance fixed fee and contingency pricing. If they are willing to take a bit of risk, you know they are confident that they can achieve the expected results.
Be sure to understand market pricing and when it makes sense to pay top dollor. For example, Jason indicates that sometimes it really does make sense to pay thousands of dollars per day – in some cases, above the market – for true experts in targetted processes or specific categories as they amount you pay will pale in comparison to the value and savings they can generate for you. After all, a couple of extra points on a nine figure category is very, very significant.
Furthermore, bigger is not always better. Many boutique consultancies (such as Aptium Global) can bring true expertise and analytical skills – and even top tier academic qualifications – for less than the cost of a “first tier” strategy and operational firms, and with significantly less chance of generalist MBAs with little spend or supply management experience being assigned to your project.
* All posts prior to 2012 were removed in the Spend Matters site refresh in June, 2023.
Procurement Outsourcing IV: Is It Right For You?
This summer, one of my weekend series over on e-Sourcing Forum [WayBackMachine] focused on Procurement Outsourcing. This series discussed some basic reasons for outsourcing, discussed the different levels, gave you some high level direction into what you should outsource, some tips for identifying a good Procurement Services Provider (PSP), some suggestions for tackling the SLA (Service Level Agreement), and some best practices to follow in preparing for the transition.
- The series can be found here:
I: Is it right for you?
II: Selecting a PSP
III: Getting the most out of your PSP
In order to entice you to keep reading, I’d like to point out the benefits that can be gained from successful outsourcing initiatives, as per Aberdeen’s May 2006 “Procurement Outsourcing Benchmark Report”. The study found that best-in-class companies achieved improvements that were almost 2.2 times, on average, better than all respondents on seven key metrics. These results, summarized in Aberdeen’s August 2006 “Procurement: Are You Ready to Outsource?” Enterprise Strategies, were as follows:
| Benefit Achieved | Best-in-class | All respondents | Ratio |
| Access to Supplier Intelligence | 86% | 33% | 2.6 |
| Fewer FTEs | 71% | 32% | 2.2 |
| Access to Category Expertise | 71% | 38% | 1.9 |
| Enhanced Ability to Track and Report Savings to the Company’s Bottom Line | 43% | 15% | 2.9 |
| Access to Improved Pricing | 71% | 48% | 1.5 |
| Improved Visibility into Spending | 43% | 21% | 2.0 |
| Refocus Procurement Team on More Strategic Activities | 43% | 23% | 1.9 |
In other words, if you outsource, and outsource well, you can achieve substantial benefits. However, these results, and the insight piece, overlook one fundamental question – Is it right for you? Unless you’re a perfect organization who does everything perfect, then you should definitely outsource. Since there is no such thing as a perfect organization, as all organization’s have their strengths and weaknesses, outsourcing is definitely something that should be considered. In the procurement organization, the same argument applies. It’s something you should consider, but you should only do it if it makes sense to do so and the benefits – operating cost reduction, capital investment reduction, access to new technology and processes, or an increase in flexibility, for example – are there.
As with the Aberdeen Insight piece, my previous posts also did not tackle the question “Is it right for you?” directly, mainly because this is a very tough question to answer, and the best way I can find to approach it is to describe what kind of organization it is right for, but a Critical Issues Report by CAPS last year, entitled “Outsourcing Strategies and Implications”, is very insightful.
The benefits will only be there if the business functions you intend to outsource can be done better by the PSP you have selected AND outsourcing fits your organizational culture. This second requirement is often overlooked. If you’re not set up for outsourcing, if many individuals or departments fight any initiative you’re going to undertake, or if the PSP’s technology and processes are incompatible with yours, you are not going to see the benefit. Therefore, before you outsource, you need to make sure outsourcing is right for you. If it’s not, you either have to find internal alternatives, or, better yet, change your organizational culture so that outsourcing of functions and categories that can be done better by a PSP fits into your culture.
One of the key points made by the CAPS Critical Issue Report is that outsourcing is a strategy that complements a larger business model. Your larger business model needs to be conducive to outsourcing. It needs to be based on a culture of continual process improvement, regardless of whether or not it is internal or external, and, most importantly, and this is also overlooked by many articles, your business model needs to be focused on your core assets – your people. Outsourcing should displace resources within your oganization, it should not remove those resources from your organization. You outsource to a PSP to reduce the tactical burden on your procurement professionals, freeing them up to spend more time on the strategic planning and secondary spend categories they would otherwise not have time to address. The Hallmark example in the CAPS report provides a brilliant example of the success can be achieved when you focus on improvement and not simply headcount reduction. The following paragraph in particular makes my point:
In order to make the transition, Hallmark kept its corporate beliefs and values foremost as a guide. This meant open communication with employees and a very gradual transition. Domestic workers who previously worked on handwork were either retrained, placed in other positions, or opted for early retirement, thus avoiding layoffs. Remember that at all times you need to maintain an innovative culture, and this is hard to foster in an organization who places its emphasis on the bottom-line and not the employees who create the bottom line.
YouTube Mania
It’s out of control. And I’m not just referring to the selling price. What else can you say when the current trend is your cat on a treadmill. (Original Wired link from 2006 is gone, but here’s a Reddit link.) ‘Nuff said.
Are you getting what you’re worth?
Tim Minahan of Supply Excellence [WayBackMachine] offered us a great post on “How to Assess Your Net Worth” back in June IF you were a purchaser in the US, leaving Canadian purchasers out in the cold. Fear not, as reported in this month’s Frasers/PMAC NewsLetter, the 2006 Purchasing b2b/PMAC Salary survey was recently released and here’s what the numbers say.
On average, supply chain practitioners are receiving a salary of $66,357, up 4.2% from last year; male purchasers are still earning 17% more than their female counterparts, $70,089 vs $60,119; and Alberta is the best place to be with an average salary of $75,418. Furthermore, the most lucrative industry is retail and wholesale trade, where purchasers pulled in an average of $81,092, followed closely by natural resources at $80,709.
Here are the average salaries, by job title, for the last three years.
| Title | 2006 | 2005 | 2004 |
| VP Dir Net | $90,700 | $84,250 | $78,158 |
| VP Dir Purch | $87,118 | $80,068 | $75,182 |
| VP Supply Mgmt | $104,000 | $99,000 | $84,000 |
| Chf. Dir Supply Mgmnt | $96,750 | $91,000 | $84,500 |
| Dir Mtrls Mgmnt | $85,000 | $79,000 | $76,000 |
| Mtrls Mgr | $88,778 | $91,967 | $85,328 |
| Purch Mgr | $71,465 | $66,728 | $62,108 |
| Purch Agent | $52,218 | $48,428 | $45,415 |
| Sr Buyer | $58,779 | $56,583 | $54,951 |
| Other Buyer | $48,617 | $46,800 | $44,718 |
| Other | $66,162 | $66,600 | $65,215 |
The full report is available. How do we stack up to the US, the average buyer makes more $66 vs. $62 (adjusted to Canadian based on the average of the ISM and Purchasing Magazine surveys), the average Director makes less $91 vs. $120, and the average VP makes significantly less $94 vs. $160. This is bad news for Canada, already number two in the world in the talent crunch with 76 million baby boomers in the US eligible for retirement in the next five years, since you know the US compensation for supply chain leaders is only going to increase, making it even more unattractive for those leaders to stay in Canada when south of the border starts paying not 33% to 70% more, but 50% to 100% more.
The only thing on a Canadian company’s side right now is that it’s more profitable for a purchaser to start his or her career and gain valuable experience in Canada. So my message to corporate leaders is this: make an effort to slowly increase your pay scales to match US rates for senior professionals and keep our talent here – and over the next decade we can show the US how efficient operations are done Canadian style.
