Category Archives: Public Sector

To Solve the Talent Crisis, Think Different!

We have a talent crisis across the board in Supply Management and Supply Chain. We shouldn’t have a talent crisis, but because of continual short-sightedness in industry and government, we do.

And at this point I should probably end the post because by now the average person who stumbles upon this post is probably screaming that it’s not our fault, because we value talent, we have great education systems, and we’re trying hard to fix it, etc. etc., but it is our fault. Why?

Every year we rank talent in the top 3 issues. And every year, as our hopes and dreams that strong growth and stability will return get slashed by reality, the first thing we do is cut the training budget. And then, when we realize that there’s too much to do with too little people, we cut professional development time and ask people to work overtime on tactical tasks that add nothing to their skill set. And the cycle continues. So, in the corporate world, we cause our own chaos.

And then, when we have millions of people out of work, with thousands willing to retrain for better jobs, we limit unemployment benefits and make it almost impossible to get money for professional and degree programs. And I’m not just talking scholarships or sponsored training, I’m talking loans that many of these people would be willing to take, and carry for years, just for the opportunity to acquire a skill set that will see them working again. So the government is doing nothing to actually fix the situation. Governments have to guarantee loans for education and they have to subsidize living costs for workers who need retraining if their future earning benefits will limit the ability to repay very high loans. But that’s another issue for another post.

The point that needs to be harped on is that, as an industry, we’ve created our own mess, and we perpetuate it every day. As the job of Supply Manager gets more and more demanding, the response I’m seeing is “We need a talented, educated, skilled individual with a Masters Degree in Supply Management, who speaks three languages, has experience with MRP, ERP, and best-of-breed technologies, has sourcing expertise in three categories across five verticals, has managed 100 Million dollar projects, is trained in negotiation, etc. etc. etc.”. And, in the end, we have a set of requirements that maybe 6 people in the world can fill because ( a) it’s way too much for one person and ( b) the company has never bothered to train anyone internally with even half the skills it wants.

If a company instead took care to appropriately define a set of reasonable job descriptions that would cover all the necessary skills, and then identified internal candidates and trained them for those positions, they would have half the battle solved. Then, if instead of looking for someone for the role who had all of the skills, looked for someone who has the education and experience to quickly learn all of the skills with the mentorship of the people trained internally and a few focussed professional development courses, I’m convinced half of our talent crunch issues would magically disappear over night. (The logistics half would still be an issue because we have the image problem associated with warehouse and trucking jobs in this economy. Because we don’t view those jobs as highly important and an honour to hold, as the Mexicans do [which is why I’m okay with giving them our trucking jobs], convincing people to even consider those jobs will continue to be difficult.)

And then, as this recent article over on the HBR network on how workers with disabilities solved Gitanjali Gems’ talent problem, we never take the time to realize that someone else’s island of misfit toys might actually be filled with the resources we need to do the job. Now, I agree with Charles’ that Supply Management has traditionally been the island of misfit toys in an organization, and that is a big problem, but the reality is that if someone is skilled in X when organization Z needs Y, that person will be a misfit toy in organization Z. The best candidates for a Supply Management job are often people in engineering, high tech, medicine, (bio) chemistry, etc. who know the details of the category that need to be sourced, and the challenges that are involved, but who are not necessarily the best people to be building the projects or doing research. Just like some of the best sales and marketing people in high tech are people with CS degrees who learned to code, figured out that they weren’t very good at it and/or didn’t like it very much, but that they understand inherently what could and could not be done and the relative amounts of effort different commitments to a customer would carry. In IT, many R&D misfits became marketing marvels.

In the case of Gitanjali Gems’, they needed cutters. This is a skill that takes training and time to acquire, and a big money commitment from an employer. So they need to find people with interest, aptitude, and loyalty, as they’d lose big financially if they lost people to the competition as soon as they reached their productive potential. So they looked to people with real disabilities, and found that the attrition rate was 10 times lower, the productivity was 30% higher, and the overall working atmosphere became one where people “felt good” when they went to work, making them want to work even more. In my book, this far outshadows the additional benefits they received from the government (which ends up paying about 15% of the salaries), and the good press they get for the initiative. Because the company found people who wanted to work, and gave those people the training and tools they needed to be successful, the people enjoyed working for the company, worked 30% more productively, and stayed around a lot longer. Which shows that the talent crunch is solvable, if you just get up and actually do something about it.

e-Procurement on an ERP – Harder than Fetching Groceries in a Battle Tank

Procurement Insight has been tearing up a storm recently. First, they make it clear that “e” does not change the fundamental nature of anything, then they rip the covers off of Supply Chain Leakage, and now, for the triple play, they tell us that you don’t take your tank to the mall, Mrs. Worthington.

In the article, the author, Ian Burdon, described a particularly dispiriting conference where he went to a session on “Re-engineering Government Procurement” where “experts” claimed that the thing to do was to sort out procurement processes then hand it all over to SAP and Oracle. Really? In this situation, I would not have thought about throwing myself out of a high window but, instead, of throwing the experts out of the high window, because anyone who would say such a thing can’t be much of a Procurement expert.

As Ian said, the reason things were often going so badly in government (procurement) despite their having invested in ERPs was precisely because they were using ERPs. ERP stands for Enterprise Resource Planning, not Enterprise Resource Procurement. Failing to even ask what the “P” stood for was the government agency’s first mistake. The next mistake was failing to understand that a “planning” system that told you there would be a need for 5,000 toner cartridges, 10,000 reams of paper, and 500 litres of industrial solvent does not have to tell you how you would go about procuring these items in order to accomplish resource planning. Nor does it have to give you RFX, Auction, or analytics capabilities of any kind as it is not sourcing, nor purchase order management, invoice management, and payment management functionality, as it is not procurement. Trying to use ERP for e-Procurement is like trying to fit a dodecagonal peg in a hexagonal hole. (Good luck with that.)

Just because someone claims to be the Procurement oracle, doesn’t mean that they are. They just might be trying to make a sap out of you. Get an unaffiliated third party to figure out what you need, and get it. Not what a big corporation, or a misguided expert, tells you.

The (Board) Gamer’s Guide to Supply Management Part II: The Settlers of Catan

I’m very excited to continue this brand new 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. Learning Supply Management doesn’t have to be as fun as watching paint dry — it can be much more fun! And when you can grasp some of the basic concepts playing a strategic board game with your friends, it’s a blast.

While Settlers of America Trails to Rails (also put out by Catan) might be a better choice to follow Ticket To Ride, that we introduced in last week’s post, The Settlers of Catan is also a great game to include in our series, and, more importantly, there is another great TableTop episode, again hosted by the one, and only, Wil Wheaton In Exile on Twitter. And since the best way to learn a new game is to see it in action until you are familiar with other board games in the same vein, we’re going to take advantage of the priceless gift that Mr. Wheaton has given us.

In TableTop Episode 2, Wil Wheaton uses Settlers of Catan, a modern day classic that has sold hundreds of millions of copies, to introduce us to the joys of trading wood for sheep. What could be better?

As with Ticket to Ride, the rules are fairly simple. As explained by Wil:

      We are settlers on the legendary island of Catan. The first person to reach 10 victory points wins the game. You get victory points by collecting and managing resources. You get resources when one of the settlements you have built is adjacent to a tile that has spawned a resource. We find out which tiles spawn resources every turn by rolling dice. No one will have enough resources on their own to build the roads, settlements, and cities they need to win the game. So we will all have to barter and trade with each other. Just like in real life, there are nasty surprises waiting for you. Whenever we roll a seven, the robber gets activated. He steals from you. We hate the robber. The robber is a dick. But if you get robbed, it’s not the end of the world. There are other ways to get victory points — having the longest road, having the largest army, or you can also trade in resources to buy [these] development cards (which may also give us victory points).

Sounds easy, right? So where is the difficulty? Some resources are more likely to be spawned than others, as each of the 18 non-desert hexes have different numbers associated with them from 2 to 12 (excluding 7), and, according to probability, hexes with sixes or eights are more likely to be rolled and spawn their resources. Plus, there are five different resource types (brick, wood, wheat, sheep, and stone), and each type of building requires multiple resource types. A road requires wood and brick; a settlement (worth one victory point) requires wood, brick, wheat, and sheep; and a city (which is built on top of a settlement and worth two victory points) requires two wheat and three stone. As such, you need to strategically position your settlements to maximize the chances of getting the resources you need, but you can’t place settlements just anywhere. They can only be at hex boundaries and there must be a road of length at least two between any pair of settlements on the board. Or, if you don’t have good placement opportunities for your settlements that would allow you to maximize your chance of getting resources (by placing the settlement on a corner between three hexes with decent roll probabilities), you can try to build on a port that gives you better than average trading opportunities. (In the game, you can always trade four resources of the same type for a resource of any other type with “the bank”*, but some ports reduce this to three for one, and some ports allow you to trade specific resources two for one. This is very useful near the end of the game when your opponents are unwilling to trade with you if they see you nearing victory.)

The only other relevant rules are that if you build the longest road (of length five or more), or amass the largest army (of three or more knights, which are mixed in with the development cards), you gain two victory points and if you are lucky enough to draw a monopoly card when you purchase a development card, you can play it down and every other player has to give you all cards of the resource type you name.** And if you roll the robber, everyone (including you) with 7 or more resource cards has to lose half, but you get to move the robber to any hex and steal a (random) resource from a player with a neighbouring settlement (or city).

So what are the parallels with Supply Management? In Supply Management:

      We are Supply Chain Professionals doing business in the global marketplace. The first of us to secure and deliver all of the products and services we need to meet all of the customer demands wins the game. We secure the products and services we need by managing suppliers and reserving limited production and distribution capacity. We find out which resources are limited by watching the market and taking note of tumultuous events. In today’s marketplace, no supplier will be able to meet all of our component or service needs on their own, so we will not only have to barter and trade with multiple suppliers, but also with our competitors and their suppliers in tight markets. And there will be nasty surprises waiting for us. A natural disaster may wipe out part of the raw material supply or Somali pirates may seize a precious shipment. We hate the pirates. They are dicks. But if our shipments get robbed, it’s not the end of the world. There are other ways to serve our customers. We can use the insurance money to buy from someone else, we can redesign our products to use alternate materials, or we can focus on a new or different substitute product or service to get us, and our customers, through the worst of times.

And just like in Catan, some resources will be more readily available than others. We will need different resources (from different suppliers) to assemble our complex product and service offerings, strategic reservation of production capacity and distribution capacity will give us a major competitive edge over our competition, and the more international trading capability we have at our disposal, the better trades we are going to be able to make (as some countries value wheat, lumber, or brick more than others, depending on whether they are short on building materials or food). The more trade lanes we have access to, the more markets the organization can serve; acquiring a monopoly on a certain product or service in a region, even for a limited time, gives us a significant edge in negotiations (as long as it’s not in violation of local laws), and keeping individual shipment value down can limit losses in the event of a robbery.

So what does The Settlers of Catan teach us?

  • if we are gamers new to the subject matter, it teaches us that successful Supply Management requires a lot of skill as we have to balance investments in (new) product development (settlements and cities) and logistics capacity (roads); we have to optimize local distribution (inner placement) hand-in-hand with global distribution (port placement); and we have to try and keep our competitors from locking up too much of available capacity in critical trade lanes (longest road) or production (largest army) and, most importantly, that we will have to do a lot of negotiating to succeed.
  • if we are new Supply Management professionals looking to improve our Supply Management game, it allows us to practice our negotiation skills and see how the negotiations change depending on the supply/demand imbalance for the raw materials and our relative strength in the marketplace (as your opponents will typically be very open to trading with you to mutual advantage if they are in the lead but very reserved if you are in the lead and the trade is perceived as advancing you [closer] to victory).
  • if we are seasoned Supply Management veterans, it helps us understand the strength and weaknesses of different Supply Management strategies. For example, if we focus on inland building to maximize the chances of resource spawning every turn, we are giving up any chance to guarantee low-cost trades later in the game (as we will not be building on ports). And if we focus on the ports, while we may be able to trade many resources cheap, we may never acquire enough resources to trade. If we focus on pure settlement and city building, an opponent may be able to sneak in and win the game with only two settlements (2 points) and one city (2 points) if they took a development strategy and secured the longest road (2 points), largest army (2 points), and two victory point development cards (2 points). It allows us to work on our strategic planning skills and notice that for every strength we achieve with a strategy, there is always a weakness that can be exploited by our competition with the right counter-strategy. And the better we understand the strengths and weaknesses of our strategies, the better we can adapt them and monitor them over time.

It’s a great game, and if you can’t wait to get started, I have great news if you own an iOS device. Catan for iOS is available in the App Store — although I must admit its a bit hard to play on the iPhone/iPod touch as you constantly have to zoom in and out. Now go forth and settle!


* which is a term you Monopoly (which we will not be including in this series) players are familiar with
** which has the opposite effect of the Mod card in Uno Mod for you Uno players

820K for a Las Vegas Conference? Amateurs! Just Ask The UK Public Sector.

I’ve been watching the headlines on Spend Matters and Spend Matters UK the last few weeks where they have been harping on the 820K GSA Conference in Las Vegas (and the fact that the GSA cited their maximum budget in advance with no intention of negotiating lower rates) and the lack of spending ethics in an organization charged with helping the Government save money. While this is an example of “excessive and wasteful” Procurement practice that is likely in violation of the policies of just about any Public Sector agency, it’s more of a personnel issue (with a few bad apples who like to misuse funds) than a Procurement issue.

This story, which broke in early, should be dwarfed by a much more important story that broke around the same time, that dealt with an amount 2,800 times as large. And that is, as first reported on SupplyManagement.com (to the best of the doctor‘s knowledge), the result of the 2012 Annual Fraud Indicator, as published by the National Fraud Authority.

According to the report, Procurement fraud, which made up the largest portion of the total loss, cost central government £1.4 Billion and local government £890 Million as a result of false and ‘double invoicing’, price fixing, altering payment details, and giving kickbacks to determine contract awards. Note that the first and last instances of fraud can only occur when someone on the Procurement team is taking part in the fraud. (And don’t tell me the buyer didn’t double invoice. While true, if he didn’t catch it, he’s guilty. It doesn’t take much work to check an invoice, and if you acquire a good P2P system, invoices are checked automatically against invoices in the system, rejected if obviously duplicate [same invoice #, etc.] and flagged if potentially duplicate [similar details, amounts, etc.].) If a large number of false or double-invoices slip through, then someone on the team is letting them. (Unless they are really, really stupid. But, hopefully, by now such people would have been eliminated from such a significant role given the focus on Procurement in the last decade.)

Think about that for a moment. £2.3 Billion or $3.7 Billion U.S. That’s an amount greater than the economy of at least 30 countries (Tuvalu, Kiribati, Sao Tome, Tonga, Dominica, Comoros, Samoa, Saint Vincent, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Vanuatu, Grenada, Solomon Islands, Guinea-Bissau, Gambia, Seychelles, Liberia, Antigua and Barbuda, Saint Lucia, Djibouti, Belize, Bhutan, Cape Verde, Maldives, Central African Republic, Sierra Leone, Burundi, Lesotho, Guyana, Eritrea, Fiji, Togo, and Suriname)! Gone. In the crapper. Down the drain. From fraud! So, Martha Johnson may have had her fun, while single-handedly propping up the economy of Las Vegas for a few days while doing so, but this wasteful spending (on real goods and services, though very heavily inflated in cost) was only a drop in the bucket compared to the money lost in public sector fraud every year.

The message — if you are a public sector organization, get an audit and do something about the fraud. If you don’t know where to start, get help. There are consultancies that specialize in this. Katzscan is one example.

From the Land of D’OH: Timely Payments Make Effective Business

A recent SupplyManagement.com article on how Direct Payments Will Save Government £40 Million a Year caught my eye not because improving efficiency in an organization that spends Hundreds of Millions processing paper will, obviously, save Millions, but because of this paragraph:

The government estimates that ensuring SMEs get paid more promptly will enable them to run their businesses more cost-effectively and pass those savings back to the government. It will also improve the cash flow of small businesses and their ability to plan for future deals.

Supply Chain experts and leaders have been preaching this for years. Slow payments force suppliers to take loans, at terms that are significantly worse than what a large buying organization can get. Sometimes, to make payroll and secure cash-flow when buyers take 60, 90, and even 120 days to pay, small/new/perceived-risk supplier organizations have to borrow at 20%, 30%, and even 40% per annum. This substantially drives up their cost of doing business — a cost that will, inevitably, be passed to the buyer with the short-term mindset. If the buying organization pays on time, or, if it needs to, takes out a loan based on its credit terms, which could be only 6%, 5%, or 4%, to pay on time, the supplier can operate more cost effectively and pass on those savings to the buyer. It is that simple.

But this is a government organization. We should be happy they figured it out before Mayan Doomsday and not The Date Heard Around the World. (At least this way some of us will see the beginnings of a government organization coming to its senses during our lifetime.)

Of course, if the UK government really wants savings, it should mandate that the NHS follow this advice. As the world’s fifth largest employer, it spends £110 Billion a year and processes Millions of payments. That’s a huge savings opportunity!