Category Archives: SaaS

IQNavigator Navigates You Through Statement of Work Creation

Since we last covered IQNavigator and their IQ-based Navigation of Contingent Labour Sourcing in 2008, IQNavigator has been hard at work extending their platform and its capabilities to go beyond temporary and contingent labour and also handle project and SOW (Statement-of-Work) sourcing events and the full SOW life-cycle.

Project and SOW sourcing projects, even if they consist primarily of contingent labour, are different from standard contingent labour sourcing events in that a third party is managing the project, payments are (typically) on a different schedule and have to be tracked against a budget, and named resources need to be tracked. The entire process, from RFX, through contract generation and award, to project management and delivery is different.

The customizations in the IQNavigator platform start with the initial RFX creation, which begins with a wizard-based decision-tree workflow. This Decision Manager is customizable by the organization for each type of SOW project that it undertakes, that, based on a series of questions, will configure the proper RFX for the project in question. This series of questions (that can be customized by each client organization), which could be as simple as asking the user to identify the location where the services are required, the category of the work (IT, engineering, advertising, etc.), the length of the project, the expected budget (range) required, and the approvals required, will, once completed, initiate an RFX workflow that will incorporate the necessary elements of the SOW project. The Decision Manager solution was designed to focus on two things:

  1. Delivering the end user to the correct channel (or category) based on Procurement’s operational and/or vendor preferences and
  2. Placing the end user at the optimal point of the defined category workflow based on the end user’s responses

Depending on the answers given, the RFX will include sections for the definition of milestones, budgets, rate tables, (open) supplier selection, support for named resources, questionnaires, and / or required submissions (such as insurance certificates) from the supplier to be considered for the project. The user will then be walked through the definition of the RFX for the SOW project step-by-step (by way of a pre-configured RFX or SOW template).

Milestones are up to the individual who creates the project, can be tied to a budget line item, and associated with one or more deliverables. Budgets can be as simple as an overall budget for the project, or as detailed as a budget category for each deliverable associated with each milestone (if the project is being paid for on a deliverable basis) or by (named) resource if the project is being conducted on a time-and-materials basis.

Suppliers can quickly be selected from a drop-down search box if the organization has (pre)approved suppliers for the SOW project in question, and if the suppliers have provided rate tables, these rate tables can be automatically pulled in and presented back to the supplier (to verify) during their bid. In addition, if the supplier has previously specified named resources, these named resources can be pre-populated as well. Depending on the project, they buyer may also have the option to add additional suppliers (which will be invited to bid on the project as well).

Questionnaires can also be selected from a set of standard pre-existing questionnaires associated with the type of project being sourced. They can be distributed as-is or modified as required. In addition, the user can create their own questionnaire if one doesn’t exist that fits the bill.

When the RFX is complete to the user’s satisfaction, it is sent to the supplier who logs in and completes a bid to their satisfaction. If the supplier has already defined their rate tables and named resources and uploaded their insurance certificates, bidding on the project by the supplier could be as simple as identifying the resources who will complete the work, providing work estimates and proposed fees, and accepting the (automatically calculated) budget.

When all of the supplier responses have been obtained, the buyer, who can choose to analyze each response individually, can also evaluate the responses side by side in a comparison report that includes the (budget) elements of interest and then select one of the responses as the basis of a project award. At this point, the application can generate a draft contract based upon a template that pulls in all of the collected information, and includes any necessary documents in appendices. And if the supplier has signed a MSA (Master Services Agreement) with the buyer that authorizes password-based named-login approvals in the IQNavigator SOW platform as e-Signatures, the contract can be accepted online and work can begin immediately.

The entire SOW application is streamlined to make the sourcing and approval of SOW projects as easy as possible for the project manager, while incorporating as many best practices as possible, which allows the project manager to focus her time on what she does best — managing projects and not running sourcing events.

Then, once the SOW project has been awarded, the project manager can use the rest of the IQNavigator platform to track project progress against milestones, collect time sheets, approve time sheets and expenditures, make payments against project budget categories, and track overall supplier performance. The reporting engine can be used to run reports at any time and the dashboard can be used to monitor current action items and outstanding project milestones and deliverables.

The inclusion of SOW capability makes IQNavigator an end-to-end platform for managing all types of contingent labour required by your organization, whether such labour is managed in house or by a third party. The IQNaviagor approach to SOW is unique, and it is the most thorough solution for generic SOW sourcing events in a contingent labour solution that SI has seen to date.
The IQNavigator platform is a great way to get all of your labour-based spend under management in one platform.

Arena – Taking PLM Deep Into the Supply Chain Part II

In Part I we noted that Arena, since we last covered The Arena Solution in 2007, extended their PLM solution that was built around BOM (Bill-of-Material) Management, Item Management, and Change Management to support (better) Document Management, Quality Management, and Compliance Management. We also noted that they added more enterprise integration capabilities to ensure that their PLM solution integrated with all of the major ERP and MRP solutions on the market. We briefly covered these solutions before noting that, on top of these additions, they just released four new capabilities on top of their existing platform that we are going to cover in depth today.

Arena Projects
Arena Projects is a fully-functional project management solution that is fully integrated with the rest of the Arena suite which adds the dimension of product data to Project Management and allows for product-level production schedules to be defined and integrated with the master project schedule. Like every other project management solution, every project can be attached to a program, given a manager, assigned a start date, given milestones (composed of tasks) and target dates, and updated when a task is completed or milestone is reached. In addition, as it was developed on top of a PLM solution to support NPD/NPI (New Product Development / New Product Introduction), projects can be broken down into the conception, planning, development, manufacturing release, and launch phases. Statements of work and other supporting documents, can be attached and participants can leave notes on projects and issues as the project progresses. And, most importantly, all of the schedules associated with all of the projects in a program can be rolled up to provide a program manager a master view of status. In addition, there is a user view that allows a user to see all of her assignments across projects, recent notifications, documents she has access to, and actions she has to complete.

The solution was also designed to support CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) projects and has a built-in understanding of the process that consists of team establishment, problem definition, interim containment actions, root cause identification, corrective action identification, corrective action implementation, best practices to prevent recurrence, and project closure (with the recognition of team efforts). This built-in template makes setting up a new CAPA project, which can be linked to products already in the system, a breeze. The Project module is also integrated with their new Reporting module that can access any and all data in the system, so it is easy for a manager to get a handle on all projects under her purview or for an engineer to see the status of all projects on which he is assigned tasks and prioritize his work appropriately.

Arena Demand
Arena Demand is their demand management solution. Like other demand solutions, it allows a user to enter a forecast against multiple BOMs, aggregates the total demand for required parts or materials against multiple products, and presents the user with the total demand for each part or raw material along with any cost and sourcing information in the system. It’s an obvious feature that, for the longest time, was missing from many PLM systems. And while basic demand management capability will often exist in the MRP that the PLM provider will assume the organization has, the PRM provider is actually making two assumptions here that aren’t always true. The first assumption is that the organization has a higher-end MRP (which isn’t always the case for mid-sized manufacturers with limited IT budgets) and the second assumption is that the customer can easily get the relevant PLM data in the relevant format out of the PLM solution and into the MRP (which can require IT expertise the manufacturing organization does not have). Plus, sourcing doesn’t want to deal with an MRP — they just want a report that, for each product or raw material, presents them with total aggregated demand for the relevant time period, historical cost data, and known sources of supply.

The Arena Demand solution is quite easy to use — for each product, the manufacturing (or marketing) organization can input the expected demand by month or quarter and the solution spits out a report of demand by component part or raw material for the same time period, augmented with known supplier part matches and historical costs, if desired. In addition, since the solution is also tightly integrated with the Reporting platform, the sourcing team can filter in to specific programs, categories, or parts, or even suppliers of interest (if the sourcing team is looking to potentially aggregate volume to preferred suppliers for additional savings).

Arena EI
Arena EI, short for Arena Enterprise Integration, as we noted yesterday, is a new Open RESTful API that can be used to push data into Arena from any system and pull any and all data out of the Arena solution that needs to be pushed into other organizational systems. Supporting JSON data transport over secure https with session ID authentication, the API is flexible, powerful, and secure. And since it has access to all of the data in the Arena platform, it is a powerful, complete solution for data interchange into and out of the Arena platform.

Arena Exchange
Arena Exchange, which is the most revolutionary of the new Arena offerings, introduces the ability for real-time supply chain collaboration to include all impacted parties across multiple tiers of the supply chain during new product introduction, and the solution does so with unprecedented ease. It paves the way for a paradigm shift in the way manufacturers can manage the design and development of new products in an inclusive, but still secured and controlled, fashion.

In the Arena Exchange solution, any one can invite supple representatives to view, comment on, and approve bid packages, sub-packages, or even individual components — as each user can limit the data that the invitee sees to only the data she needs to see. In addition, if the invitee doesn’t have all of the input required for her part of the bid-package, she can carve out a chunk and send that off to someone on her team or to her supplier representative if needed. The relevant parts of the PLM can go all the way down to the tier-3 supplier shop floor for rework if need be, and the business impact of this up-front visibility and collaboration will be better DFM (Design for Manufacturing), faster TTM (Time-to-Market) due to fewer errors, less scrap and rework, lower cost, and higher quality.

The platform, which can be put on top of any PLM solution (not just Arena’s) that stores its files in standard PDX (Product Data eXchange) format (an international electronics manufacturing initiative standard), has a very simple interface that allows the user to access the specifications, bill of materials, sourcing information attached files, and (change) history by item, manufacturer item, and vendor item. The user can then add comments, send (selected portions) of the BOM to an existing (or new) user, add reviewers, define due dates, submit approvals, and ask questions. Drill-down is easy, so the user can quickly get to the appropriate sub-assembly, component, part, or raw material. At any time, the user can see the (rolled-up) status of the raw materials, parts, components, sub-assemblies, and assemblies within her purview as well as which users didn’t respond. Arena Exchange is the solution the PLM industry has been missing and should be evaluated by any manufacturing organization wanting to take their NPD and NPI processes to the next level.

Arena – Taking PLM Deep Into the Supply Chain Part I

When we last covered The Arena Solution in 2007, we stated that Arena were the providers of an effective, on-demand, PLM solution that could manage the information associated with the entire lifecycle of a product from conception, through design and manufacture, to service and disposal, which, for a low margin manufacturing organization, could be the difference between costly inefficiency and profitable efficiency. One of the unique features of the solution was its support for collaboration between the buying organization and the supplying organization through an online portal.

Since the release of their first on-demand solution in 2007, which was focussed around BOM (Bill-of-Material) Management, Item Management and Change Management, over the last few years they added (better) Document Management, Quality Management, and Compliance Management. The Document Management capability, built on their change management and collaboration tools, streamlines the document management process, manages the revision process, supports privilege-based access for anyone who needs to access the document, be they employee or supplier representative, and supports the meta-data categorization required for advanced search and rapid retrieval.

The Quality Management capability supports your CAPA (Corrective and Preventive Action) process and allows the organization to track progress on quality improvement processes over the long term. The Quality Management capability allows for the creation of issues, corrective action requests, and tasks necessary to resolve the issues identified by the corrective action requests. It also associates the issues to requests, BOMs, and associated documents and allows the process to be managed from beginning to end and the entire history to be archived for the institutionalization of knowledge.

The Compliance Management capability was designed to allow an organization to meet regulatory requirements and track compliance information for products and processes with BOM-level control to allow an organization to comply with medical, environmental, regulatory, safety, and process standards and regulations. From import restrictions to quality standards to safety standards to reporting regulations, a manufacturing organization often has more regulations to adhere to than it has items in its largest BOM (which can be quite large, especially if it’s manufacturing automobiles, airplanes, or automated control systems for nuclear power plants). This is not an easy task when the organization often has to track the materials in every item in its BOM, the insurance certificates for each supplier, and the third party certifications for each product. But with a proper solution that allows the suppliers to upload the relevant documents, and manage them, the process is a lot easier.

And, finally, they added more Enterprise Integration. A PLM solution that doesn’t integrate with your ERP/MRP solution has almost as many disadvantages as it has advantages. And those disadvantages revolve around data, and data entry. At some point, orders have to be placed, and those orders at some point have to flow through the ERP system that manages the payables, the inventory, and the demand tracking. If there is no integration, the BOMs for all of the existing products will have to be manually entered or loaded into the PLM solution and the BOMs for all of the New Product Introductions will have to be manually entered into the ERP. Not a pretty picture. That’s why Arena spent a lot of time integrating with all of the major ERP and MRP systems out there over the last few years. But Arena didn’t stop there. Realizing that, as they progressed up the supply chain capability curve, that demand needs to get into sourcing systems, that regular orders need to get into procurement systems, that compliance information needs to get into reporting systems, etc., they figured out that no matter how many systems you integrate with, it will never be enough so, in their current release that just came out this quarter (which contains a number of new capabilities on top of the capabilities discussed so far), they built a new Open RESTful API that can be used to push data into Arena from any system and pull any and all data out of the Arena solution that needs to be pushed into other organizational systems. We’ll discuss this more in Part II when we talk about the four new capabilities that were just released as part of the new Arena solution.

What do the recent NSA revelations and the US Patriot Act Mean for Procurement?

Earlier this week, on Spend Matters UK, we saw a guest post from Jessica Warren of Hubwoo that asked “what the US surveillance programme means for procurement systems and people”. It asked some good questions, and gave some good answers, but it missed the most important question. However, before we get to that, we’re going to provide some background and a few other important pieces of information to put everything in context.

The post, written largely from the EU perspective, notes that the requirements of the European Data Protection Directive (95/46/EC) defines rules for the transfer of personal data outside the EU to ensure the best possible protection of personal data when it is exported abroad and that the transfer of personal data to non-EU countries that do not meet the EU “adequacy” standard for privacy protection are prohibited.

The EU is not the only political body to take privacy seriously. Canada has the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act (PIPEDA) that recognizes the right of privacy of individuals with respect to their personal information and the need of organizations to collect, use or disclose personal information for purposes that a reasonable person would consider appropriate in the circumstances and the Privacy Act that extends the laws of Canada that protect individual privacy to government institutions. These laws imply that personal information cannot be provided to any party that is not bound by laws at least as strong as the Canadian laws (which are also augmented with additional regulations in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, and Quebec). So storing Canadian data on US servers that can be seized by the US government at any time for any reason under the Patriot Act could also be a big no-no.

Another thing to remember is that hosting in the biggest Canadian Data Center that will give you the best deal, which used to be the default answer if you wanted to service North American clients with fast response times and ensure Canadian and EU privacy protections were in force, is not necessarily enough anymore, even if the data centre adheres to the U.S.-EU Safe Harbour Framework. (The Safe Harbour Framework was originally designed to provide guidance for U.S. organizations on how to provide adequate protection for EU personal data so that US companies could store and process EU data without violating EU laws. Even though the intent was sound, the execution was weak, as the first case under the framework was not brought forth until 2011, and the framework has come under significant criticism under two external reviews by the EU in [2002 and 2004] and one by Galexia [in 2008].)

Why can’t you just ask that your US solution provider store the data in Canada and be done with it? The US Patriot Act. This diabolical piece of legislation gives the US government the right to demand any data held by any company governed by US law, no matter who or what the data pertains to, how or when it was acquired, or where it is physically stored. In other words, even if your US-based solution provider stores your data in Canada or Germany, the US can still demand that data. (Even Microsoft had to admit that regardless of where it stored it’s European Customers’ data, it could not ensure such data would not be turned over to the US government. [Source])  It’s not enough to just ask the provider whether or not it can guarantee that your data is safe from the Patriot Act as most services providers don’t understand the full extent of the power granted the US Government by the Patriot Act and many believe that if they are on the Safe Harbour list then that ensures their customers have adequate protection, which is not the case.  (That’s why a European Parliament Committee is recommending suspension of US-EU Safe Harbour. [Source]) Furthermore, if such data is stored in a data centre that participates in Safe Harbour, even if it’s on Canadian soil, you’re more-or-less in a double-jeopardy situation as that data centre, by participating in the program, has agreed to adhere to US regulations and will immediately hand that data over on official request!

This says that the most important question is not where is my data hosted but

1. What law governs the data you store on my behalf?

Simply put, if the company is bound by US law, it doesn’t matter where your data is, it is still subject to the US Patriot Act, and can be demanded by the U.S. Government at any time.

If your organization is subject to EU or Canadian privacy directives (which, in most provinces, prohibit the export of private data outside of Canada), after you have verified that US law does not govern the data stored on your behalf, then you ask:

2. Where is my data being stored?
2b) If you are storing my data in Canada, has the data centre opted into a US Safe Harbour program?

If privacy is a concern, not only do you not want your data stored in the US, but you probably don’t want it stored in a Canadian Data Center that has opted into a US Safe Harbour program (and agreed to enforce requests made under the US Patriot Act). (Note that there are a number of data centres in Canada that have not opted into this program that are still really good choices for servicing your North American operations.)

3. Is the storage provider (which might be a data centre contracted by your solution provider, as most Sourcing and Procurement SaaS providers do not manage their own data centres) bound by laws at least as strong as the privacy laws my organization is bound by?

If the answer is yes, you’re good to go.

There’s also three lessons here for US-headquartered Sourcing and Procurement Vendors who want to go global (and conquer Europe).
Specifically:

1) Move your headquarters somewhere else.
The UK would be a good choice if being located in an English speaking country is important to you.
2) Open a Canadian subsidiary to manage your North American service delivery operations.
3) Use a Canadian Data Center that does not participate in the US Safe Harbour program to store your customers’ data.

Early Payment Discounts vs. Early Payment Rebates

Are we dealing with six of one and half a dozen of the other? After reading “The Art of the Play” (PCubed.com), I have to wonder.

They are different in that you get one right away and you get the other later, and they are different in that one is just a reduction in spend and the other can be treated as an income stream, if the CFO so desires, but in the end they both have the same effect on the bottom line — less spend.

So why would an organization favour one over the other when the big difference is capturing the savings now versus capturing the savings later? If the organization was limited in cash and was trying to maximize savings, then capturing the savings right away would definitely make more sense, but if the organization was flush with cash and the supplier offered tiered rebates that improved with volume, then the organization might want to wait until later. Otherwise, the doctor can’t see much of a difference.

However, one area where there is a big difference is paying for a platform vs. paying for a service, especially for a big company. For example, the Oxygen Finance model described in the article is to provide you with a service where you pay up to 50% of the discount or rebate captured by transaction. While this is a good deal for a mid-sized company that might not have the up-front cash required to implement the end-to-end e-Procurement solution required to effectively take advantage of discounts and rebates offered by suppliers for quick payments, this can be a very expensive solution for a large enterprise. Consider a company that spends 250 Million a year, the low-end of the market for Oxygen Finance. If the average rebate is 1.5%, and you give one third of that up to the service provider, then the organization is paying 1.25 M a year for the solution, and only achieving a 2X ROI.

A company of this size can acquire a SCF solution for a fraction of this cost and realize a much larger ROI.

When you dive in, you realize that there are only three reasons most companies can’t create or take advantage of most of the early payment discount and rebate opportunities available to them:

  1. Invoices aren’t getting in the system fast enough
    because most of them are coming in as (e-)paper.
  2. Approved invoices aren’t getting to AP fast enough
    because routings for approval take too long.
  3. Procurement doesn’t have the manpower to negotiate rebates on 100% of spend
    because there are too many suppliers.

And while these were valid problems a few years ago, without (m)any real solutions (that an average organization could afford), today:

  1. An organization can acquire a SaaS end-to-end invoice automation framework, such as the one offered by Nipendo, that will convert all incoming invoices into one standard e-format for six figures.
  2. An organization can acquire a number of rules-based e-Procurement and invoice automation solutions (including Nipendo‘s) that will automatically approve and route all error-free invoices that match a PO or contract to the AP system and route those that require manual correction or approval to the right individual for online (e-mail) approval.
  3. An organization can see significant returns addressing only 80% of the spend which is typically with less than 20% of the supply base.

An organization that takes this approach can typically acquire a solution for (much) less than 500K a year, save 1.5% on 200 M of spend, and see a (minimum) 6X return, which is the return you should be looking for from an e-Procurement solution.

Maybe there’s another reason for a large enterprise to go transaction-fee SaaS for discount and rebate management, but if there is, the doctor ain’t seeing it — and he’s been covering SCF for years. As far as he is concerned, the sweet-spot for transaction-fee SaaS for discount and rebate management is the 50M to 250M range, because the implementation cost of the necessary end-to-end e-Procurement, invoice-Automation, and SCF solution isn’t that much cheaper for a mid-sized organization than for a Global 3000, and at less than 200M of addressable spend, the ROI multiplier starts to drop considerably.

Any differing opinions?