Category Archives: RFX

8 Reasons Best-in-Class Suppliers are Ignoring Your RFP


Today’s guest post is from Brian Seipel, a marking project expert at Source One focussed on helping corporations achieve both marketing and procurement objectives in their strategic sourcing projects.

Imagine you’ve spent hours crafting an RFP defining exactly what you need and finding the right mix of suppliers best able to provide a solution. Despite your efforts, top suppliers are either unresponsive out of the gate or go dark early in the initiative. Suddenly, your supplier pool is shrinking, and key players in the market have thrown in the towel before your RFP even got off the ground. Why is this, and what can we do to ensure sourcing events bring in the best possible candidates?

Failure to Launch

It’s easy to look at an RFP as a way for suppliers to “wow” you, but keep in mind that an RFP is a two way street — You need to “wow” them as well. Your RFP is your first shot at communicating your needs to potential suppliers. As such, the goal of your RFP should always be to attract the best possible suppliers and quickly establish why they should participate.

As soon as your RFP lands on their doorstep, you can bet suppliers are vetting you just as hard as you vetted them. They have a short list of red flags to determine whether they are a go or no-go — if your RFP trips too many, you can bet these suppliers will go dark, even if they are a perfect match. Knowing what these red flags are will help you craft an RFP that draws them in and ensures participation.

Before Distributing the RFP

Prior to reviewing the RFP itself, let’s discuss your potential supplier pool. Two red flags will ground your RFP immediately if not addressed before would-be participants see it.

  • Lack of proper fit.
    How sure are you that the suppliers receiving your RFP really are a good fit for all your requirements? Discovering supplier fit all but a few critical needs late in the game will be a huge time waster, so consider arranging a quick conference call with any suppliers you haven’t worked with before as a measure-twice-cut-once vetting process. Not only will you identify partial or all out bad fits, you’ll be able to establish a level of rapport early on.
  • Lack of a relationship.
    Speaking of rapport, participants know they are likely to run up against incumbent suppliers during the initiative. If you don’t begin building a relationship with them quickly, they may feel they are only being brought in to help you build a case to beat the incumbent down on price. A little glad-handing goes a long way: while you’re reaching out to participants to ensure they are truly a good fit, spend time describing why they were included in the RFP, and get them excited about the opportunity.

Hidden Landmines Within Your RFP

Now that suppliers are fully vetted and raring to go, take a step back and consider what red flags are sitting in your RFP documents.

  • Too much boilerplate language.
    Any supplier who has been in business for even a short time can spot boilerplate language — it isn’t hard to pick out. Boilerplate language creates the appearance of slapdash work, and suppliers won’t want to spend resources crating a thought out into a response when they don’t think as much thought went into developing it in the first place. Unless the boilerplate is needed to fulfill certain legal needs, strip it away.
  • Lack of clarity.
    New suppliers don’t know you, your needs, or what it will take to win your business — and they will bolt if they don’t get this information quickly. Your RFP should be clearly written and organized in such a way to fill in all three of these blanks in short order. At a minimum, include an elevator pitch about your organization, and follow with the reasons behind this RFP and what you hope to accomplish before leading into the scope of work. Lay out the initiative’s key milestone dates, and the deliverables required for each.
  • Poorly defined scope of work.
    It is all too easy to gloss over fine details when building out a scope of work. Stakeholders who are intimately familiar with the initiative from the inside may not consider an outsider’s (very limited) point of view when constructing this section. Nothing sends suppliers running faster than a weak scope, which gives the impression of a poorly defined project requiring too much of a time investment in gathering enough information to participate.
  • No opportunities for communication.
    Even the clearest RFP and most detailed scope of work only tells half the story. Open communication is needed to flesh out requirements and delve deep into the underpinnings of a winning proposal. Are you building time for Q&A sessions into your initiative, and clearly spelling out your availability to participants? If suppliers get the sense that they can’t engage you, they won’t risk spending time drafting a proposal only to learn later on that they missed the mark entirely.
  • Needlessly extensive questionnaire or requirements.
    The longer your questionnaire, the more time and resources suppliers will have to spend responding. Include too many, and you may make responding too difficult. Is each question strictly required to determine if a supplier can meet your needs? Cut out any superfluous questions with extreme prejudice.
  • Requests for financial information.
    The first requirement on the chopping block should be the need for one, two, or even three years of financial information if you don’t actually intend on examining them. Private companies often balk at this requirement, and RFP issuers often subsequently drop it after they decide they don’t truly need them. There are other ways to ensure financial stability, such as Dun & Bradstreet checks and reference checks. So ask yourself, do you need all those years of financial information? Now ask again, do you really need them?

Strategic Sourcing is a Two Way Street

Remember that an RFP is a two way street. Just as suppliers are trying to win your business, you need to ensure they see the value in doing so. Clearing away the red flags above is the first step in meeting that goal.

Thanks, Brian.

Why You Should Not Build Your Own e-Sourcing System, Part III e-Negotiation

In Part I, where we noted that Mr. Smith was right in his recent post on “thinking of building your own esourcing system please don’t” over on Spend Matters UK where he pleaded with those organizations, and particularly those organizations in the public sector, who thought they could build their own e-Sourcing system not to, we gave a host of reasons on why they should not because, like Mr. Smith said, they are

  • going to waste OUR money building it,
  • waste exorbitant amounts of money keeping the system up to date and compliant with ever-shifting legislation, and
  • only feed those dangerous delusions at best (and possibly create an epic disaster as 8 of the 11 greatest supply chain disasters of all time were caused by technology failures, and 6 as a result of software platform failures)!

But we know this isn’t enough to convince the smuggest and most deluded from considering the notion. So we are diving in and addressing some of the difficulties that will have be conquered, one primary module at a time, continuing with e-Negotiation, which encapsulates e-RFX and e-Auction.

An e-RFX system has the following key requirements:

  • Flexible Construction
  • Fine Grained Security & Auditing
  • User defined weighting factors for comparison

And an e-Auction system has the following key requirements:

  • Flexible Lotting
  • Configurable reverse auctions with multiple parameters
  • Real-time Distributed Communication with Fault Tolerance

Let’s start with the flexible construction requirement for RFX. Since there are dozens of vendors with decent e-RFX solutions on the market, one may fool oneself into thinking that this is easy. And while it is easier to build an e-RFX solution than just about any other Sourcing (or Supply Management) platform, if usability is a goal, it’s still not simple or straightforward. Qualification questionaries could contain a dozen sections with dozens of questions each. Advanced tabbing and pagination with dynamic expansion and compression depending upon answers and level of detail needed is an absolute must. Moreover, most supplier organizations will require input from multiple people to complete the RFX (sales, finance, production, etc.) and will need to assign parts, but not all, of the RFX to different individuals so fine-grained roles-based security will be required on the supplier side as well as the buyer side with organization, department, and user level settings and overrides.

Now let’s jump over to the flexible lotting requirement for e-Auctions. Sometimes a buyer wants to put a single product (such as laptops when an entire department is due for upgrades) out to bid, sometimes the buyer wants to put an entire category (such as office supplies) out to bid, and sometimes the buyer wants to bundle products and services (such as MRO parts and installation services). And sometimes the buyer wants to put all of these lots into a single multi-round auction. Capisce?

In addition, both platforms will require the ability to define user-defined weightings against each survey response and bid so that the buyer can compute a weighted score for each supplier or lot. And these won’t always be simple — especially if the buyer wants to weight a fuel surcharge based upon product weight and supplier region. That’s not a simple modifier, that’s a formula. And these formulas can get pretty complex in complex tenders created by a sophisticated buyer.

Moving back to the auctions, we also have the requirement that the auction must be customized each time against a host of parameters that will include, but not be limited to, bid floors and ceilings per item and lot, minimum decrements, automatic time extensions, minimum time between bids for a single supplier, and so on. Furthermore, all of this must be evaluated in a system that supports …

Real-time Distributed Communication with Fault Tolerance. In an e-Auction, multiple bids are coming in at the same time, multiple updates must be pushed out at the same time, and formulas and weightings must be calculated and updated in real time so each supplier sees their true relative rank, and not just their true relative bid. This might sound easy-peasy, but you have to remember that even the average CS graduate has trouble with programming for concurrency. (Remember, the doctor was an academic in his former life and knows this to be true. Most Universities care more about $$$ than knowledge conveyed, most untenured professors care more about publishing, as opposed to perishing, than teaching, and most tenured professors are worn out and just don’t care. As a result, as long as the program is able to read the test data and create the right output, in one case, that’s enough for a pass. It’s sad, but true.)

And while this is just a high level overview of the challenges, the hope is still that it is sufficient enough to convince you that development is not an easy task and not an idea that the average organization should remotely entertain.

Best Practice Vendor Selection for True Multi-Nationals Reprise Part V: Stuck with an ERP? You do have options!

This is a reprise of a series that first ran in 2012. It’s as relevant, and important, today as it was then.

Despite claims to the contrary, you are not stuck being a sap or hearing prophecies from an ethylene-gas inhaling delphi. You do have options. Acquisitions might have some analysts in a tizzy, but you only need to remember one thing. Don’t Panic.

It’s been years since the acquisitions of Ariba & Emptoris.

They were not the only best-of-breed game in town then, and they certainly aren’t the only best-of-breed game in town now. In fact, for many companies, SI would argue that they are not even in the best-of-breed category as the length integration cycles required to integrate them into their acquirer’s platforms slowed down development and now there are only a few module or functions left that, in SI’s opinion, are still best-of-breed. However, there are lots of other options, and these options exist on both sides of the Atlantic.

Best of Breed vendors eat, sleep, and drink supply management

Unlike do-it-all or ERP vendors, best-of-breed supply management vendors are focused entirely on a critical supply management process and, as a result, they tend to be much better at it than do-it-all or ERP vendors, especially supplier enablement, which we all know fuels the e-procurement benefits engine.

Best of Breed on an ERP backbone can offer significant advantages

  • Best of Breed providers often know the strengths and weaknesses of ERP systems they are replacing better than the consulting implementation partners, who care more about if they can weasel their way into long-term strategy consulting than a successful implementation. (For example, there are a couple of vendors with over 100 customer SAP implementations, who know the system way better than a Big 5 consultant on his second implementation.)
  • Best of Breed providers have enabled hundred of thousand of suppliers, maybe more, over the years … in all regions of the world … your 347 suppliers aren’t going to make them flinch (and they will be faster and cost less, because once again, they, or their carefully selected integration partners, have been there, done that … a few hundred thousand times.)
  • Best of Breed provider’s customers are all former ERP e-procurement / consulting implementation customers … that’s right, most of whom have already failed using the ERP/consultant approach, spent the millions, got 7 punch-outs and 11 catalogs implemented … now they spend thousands and get … well, you already know … actual results and benefits.
  • Best of Breed providers have to be better than the ERP or broad portfolio providers, because they can’t fall back on their CRM sales or app server license revenue if they don’t deliver.
  • And because of all of this, Best of Breed providers have way more references than the ERP providers. Those big ERP guys based in Germany have two significant e-procurement references … one they’ve been using for 3 years, and another from a company I never heard of on this side of the Atlantic … I know of one Best of Breed provider who has 19 published case studies, and has only lost one customer in 14 years, and that was after this company was a customer for 9 years, and decided to outsource IT, and the outsourcer, IBM, brought in an ERP to replace all of the internal systems.
  • Best of Breed providers’ SaaS-type offerings and supplier networks eliminate the need for your IT department or external consultants to be involved, so they implement faster and less expensively
  • The most successful Best of Breed providers have service organizations or carefully selected service partners around the globe to assist with implementations and provide stability.
  • Best of Breed providers fill in the gaps where ERP fall short. ERP may try, but it is not all-in-one and they are usually a year or more behind the Best-of-Breeds functionality-wise.
  • Best of Breed works and they have the client stories to prove it. Follow SI’s advice and check their references.
  • Best of Breed will help your SUM (Spend Under Management) soar.

Consider your options carefully. A Best of Breed solution on your ERP backbone might be the best decision you can make.

Best Practice Technology Vendor Selection for True Multi-Nationals Reprise Part IV: Open the Doors for a Truly Successful RFX

This is a reprise of a series that first ran in 2012. It’s as relevant, and important, today as it was then.

In the first three parts (I, II, and III) of this series we discussed the proper RFX process to follow when attempting to select a technology(-based) solution provider (for e-Procurement, e-Sourcing, and Supply Management solutions in particular) as a true multi-national. We noted that while most companies more-or-less understand the high level process, most get the implementation wrong, focussing too heavy on feature-function checklists (that are usually put together by vendors, even if they are obtained from third parties) and too little on a vendor’s global implementation and support capabilities.

If your organization follows the advice presented, starts with the customer references, and only spends time and energy conducting a detailed review of those vendors with a track record that suggests that the vendor could meet your global implementation and support needs, then your organization is off to a great start. But this isn’t the only best practice that your organization should be following in the selection of a vendor for your global technology needs. In this post we’ll cover five more.

The Core Solution Litmus Test

Once the vendor has passed the customer litmus test, the next litmus test is the core solution requirement litmus test. After dividing all of the stakeholder problems into must solves, should solves, and nice-to-solves, make sure that the vendor has solutions (technology, services, or a combination thereof) that address each of the must-solve problems and most of the nice-to-solve problems. The vendor is not right for you unless it is a global, cultural fit that brings the right solutions. (There’s no checking of feature/function boxes at this step.)

Third-Party Claim Verification

Most vendors will make big claims in terms of their platform capabilities. Just like a vendor’s ability to serve your organization globally should be challenged and verified with customer references, so should its ability to fill your technology gaps. Not only should you talk to their partners, but talk to analysts, bloggers, and other third-parties they have interacted with and whom have seen (part of) their solution.

Open Book Negotiations

In addition to third-party claim verification, don’t be afraid to force a vendor to prove every claim, statement, and assumption. This should not stop at current, successful, customer references. The vendor should let you speak to analysts it has relationships with, consultants who have implemented their solutions, auditors to verify their financial stability, and even ex-customers if asked.

End-To-End Total Cost of Ownership Elucidation

What is the true cost of the solution to your organization AND your supply chain? This goes beyond the end-to-end platform cost, as discussed in this classic post on Cost Model Calculations in SI’s Enterprise Software Buying Guide series, but also includes any costs that will be borne by your supply base. It’s often the case with e-Sourcing/e-Procurement/Supply Management solutions with Supplier Information Management, Supplier Portal, or Supplier Network functionality that a vendor will charge your suppliers an access fee, which can sometimes be hefty. An access fee that is just going to hit your organization with interest in a year when your suppliers raise their prices to cover the fees you caused them to incur. In Procurement, a penny saved today at your supplier’s expense often translates into a dime spent tomorrow. (And if you don’t believe me, then you need to work on understanding the cost of capital throughout your supply chain. Remember that sound, conventional financial management is NOT good for supply chains.)

Open Finals*

Typically, the final negotiations in this space are more secret than what goes on beyond closed doors at Area 51, scientology headquarters, and the back room of the club where Wall Street mega deals really happen. This is dumb. Blind auctions may be okay when buying commodities, but it’s the last thing an organization should do when buying a critical piece of functionality where a failed implementation will cost (tens of) millions of dollars or more in overspend and opportunity costs. Not only should each vendor be aware of whom it is up against, but vendors should be asked to promote their strengths and counter their opponents weaknesses. They should be instructed to tell the truth, even when asked tough questions (about customer retention and defection to a competitor), and penalized for false answers. Remember, good vendors are honest, especially about the occasional (big) mistake that they made, learned from, and put measures in place to prevent ever repeating it. And the best vendors will get up and walk away as soon as they realize they are not the solution for you (because they thought you needed primarily e-Sourcing functionality and they are mainly e-Procurement for example) and that it would take to long or cost to much to tailor it to your needs. (And these are the first vendors you should go back to as soon as you have needs that they can fulfill.)

If your organization implements the best practices covered in this series, then chances are, it will have no choice but to prepare for success!

* Nothing to do with tennis, folks!