Category Archives: Supplier Management

SRM Case Studies Speak for Themselves

On Friday, we noted that State of Flux just released their eighth annual SRM survey, entitled “Digital SRM: Supplier Relationships in the New Technology Landscape”, and with it the surprising revelation that while leaders are taking steps forward, Procurement organizations as a whole might be stagnant or taking steps back! This, of course, is not a good thing because the best sourcing event in the world is useless if the plan (encapsulated in the contract) isn’t followed through and the expected savings or value never materializes. SRM is the key to realizing sourcing success, and too many companies overlook that (and wonder why 30% to 40% of identified savings never materialize).

We’ve written many posts over the years not only on the importance of SRM but how to implement it and support it with technology, so this time, instead of doing another multi-part series (which can be found in the archives), we’ll just skip to some of the case studies covered in the report and hope that maybe they are enough to convince you to get your SRM act in gear and go forward!

Telstra, a big name in Australian telecoms that is relatively unknown outside of Australia, implemented a SRM program that not only put more structure, process, and value around SRM but repositioned the perception of Procurement from a function that is only focussed on cost saving to one that works with suppliers and stakeholders toward the realization of business goals. As a result of this change in mind set, and more collaboration between different departments and suppliers, Telstra has met 10% of savings targets through increased revenues, showing that SRM can do more than save money, it can increase sales and revenues by finding ways to create new value that end customers will pay (more) for.

But that’s a small win compared to Ladbrokes who saved £18 M by taking the gamble out of SRM. Since beginning their SRM transformation in 2014, they hit a 3-year savings target of £ 18M a full year ahead of schedule, demonstrating the true savings potential of a well defined and well executed SRM project, which is huge in an industry where the majority of indirect spend has to go to a very small supplier base and where competitive bidding has little effect.

And the value of SRM has not been lost on the giants. For example, if Mars were a public company, it would be a Fortune 100 company as it regularly sells in excess of $ 33 Billion a year in food products (as it manufacturers more than just the iconic Mars bar). Even though it is a top procurement organization (that employs many leading supply management technologies and processes), it has recognized that SRM can help it get even bigger and better still, and that is part of the ambitious plan it has for SRM. While its initial SRM program is still in rollout, it’s starting to see a lot of enthusiasm from stakeholders and suppliers alike, which is a hard momentum to build in an organization of 77,000 employees with a dedicated commercial team of 1,200 individuals! Whereas most organizations might have a few dozen people on the commercial side, and maybe a few hundred, and can thus build enthusiasm for new initiatives and roll them out quickly, getting a thousand people on board is no easy feat. But the potential of SRM is such that even an entire organization can get behind an initiative that can cut costs, increase value, and even encourage innovation in the supply base.

In other words, there’s a lot of gold in them thar SRM hills, and any organization that doesn’t mine for it is leaving a lot of money and value on the table. To find out how much money and what kind of value might be left on the table, check out “Digital SRM: Supplier Relationships in the New Technology Landscape”. It’s worth your time.

It’s 2016! Welcome Back to the Industrial Age of SRM!

State of Flux just released their 8th annual supplier relationship management research report entitled Digital SRM: Supplier Relationships in the New Technology Landscape and while it reveals the handful of leading supply chain organizations are, or are moving towards, digitization, it reveals the majority of organizations are not only stuck in the past, but moving back towards the industrial age in their supplier (relationship) management processes. Scary!

So scary in fact, that I hope that the purchasing wizard Pete Loughlin of Purchasing Insight does a follow up to his piece on how “we are now arriving in the digital economy – turn your watch back 40 years” entitled we are moving forward in the digital economy, turn your watch back another 40 years because some of the practices many global organizations are still practicing with respect to supplier relationship management could literally be straight out of Marshall Monroe Kirkman’s classic The handling of railway supplies. Their purchase and disposition.

And I’m not joking.

Many organizations are still doing nothing more than inviting bids by public advertisement for a year’s supply and taking the advice that the pulse of the market should be continually felt and, clearly, not thinking about the importance of managing relationships after the purchase order is cut.

And while it looked like we are making progress last year, the simple facts that:

  • the number of businesses failing to invest in any SRM-related training rose from 26% in 2015 to 39% in 2016
  • 80% of companies are not achieving on-going benefits from external spending (compared to what they could be)
  • 87% of companies are still using Excel (which is essentially just an electronic version of a general ledger at most companies) as their primary SRM tool

demonstrate that, for the majority of organizations, the digital age (which for the consumer has been here for almost two decades) is still decades away.

After all, why are Purchasing Manages still panicing when they receive the 2:00 am phone call from the CFO informing them that their primary supplier in China just filed for bankruptcy and the company needs to know ASAP what the impact will be. If they had modern supplier relationship management systems, it wouldn’t take them 48 sleepless hours pouring through accounting systems, ERP systems, and spreadsheets to figure out what products come from the supplier. With modern supply management best practices it wouldn’t take them weeks to identify a new supplier and months to switch. And with good supplier relations, they definitely wouldn’t have to absorb the price doubling mandated by the receivership for continued supply of the critical product lines.

With proper supplier relationship management, you know as much about the (financial) health status of your strategic supplier as you know about your own organization. With proper supplier relationship management, you know all the products that are being provided, in what volume, in what consumer product lines they are being used, and what the impact of a stockout or termination of the line will be. With proper supplier relationship management, a company knows which other suppliers it is using that could also produce the product, how long it would take to switch, and how much it would cost. And with good relations, the last thing the supplier personnel would be comfortable with is charging their best customers an unexpected, possibly contract violating, unmitigated price increase, and would fight any suggestions by the receivership management to increase prices to any degree.

And the sad thing is there is no shortage of basic SRM systems these days. Not all are industry leading like (and not all will deliver anywhere near the value of) State of Flux’s Statess solution, but there are so many ways for an organization to enter the digital age that it’s shocking just how hard they fight to stay in the industrial age.

Hopefully, now that the results have been demonstrated for eight years in a row, they’ll finally accept SRM is not a passing fad, its the foundation for a new reality, buy in, and go for it. At the very least, hopefully they’ll check out “Digital SRM: Supplier Relationships in the New Technology Landscape” and realize what could be.

Just What Is A Next Generation Supplier Network?

Just about every vendor with a supplier network these days that is doing any development at all is claiming to have a next generation supplier network, but just what is a next generation supplier network?

To answer this, we first need to define what was a first generation supplier network. But this is easier said then done.

According to the procurement dynamo, in his post on how marketplaces transformed into next generation supplier networks that was posted earlier this year, last generation supplier networks were marketplaces. And that’s more less accurate.

By definition, a marketplace is where suppliers can list their wares, buyers can search and review wares of interest, and contact the supplier to place an order. And that’s pretty much what first generation networks, which weren’t that much more powerful than craigslist or e-Bay, could do.

But that doesn’t a network make. Once these “marketplaces” began to allow buyers and sellers to transmit electronic documents, manage their offerings on a public and private basis (for current customers), and securely collaborate they became networks. And this is all many networks do.

So what is a next generation supplier network? According to the procurement dynamo, first and foremost a supplier network is a collaboration framework where both parties exchange business information in order to perform better together. And the doctor agrees. But any secure messaging portal fits this description, so we need to elaborate.

Secondly, a next generation supplier network is one that allows for seamless e-document exchange in EDI, XML, and other standard, accepted, and (government and regulatory body) approved e-format between buyer and supplier supply management systems. It must provide an open API for integration into these systems because if a buyer or supplier has to log in to send or receive a document, it’s first generation.

Thirdly, a next generation supplier network is one that allows suppliers to manage public and private catalogs, with multiple price tiers on the private side, to allow potential customers to find and browse their ways, and current customers to buy, buy, buy. Similarly, it allows buyers to announce tenders, define their typical needs, and be discovered by suppliers they might miss in their searches.

And fourthly, and this is the biggie, a next generation supplier network must support the development of custom apps that allow a supplier to access a supplier portal or capability on a buyer’s platform (to do VMI, for example) or a buyer to access a buyer portal or capability on the supplier’s (sales) platform to access shipment and status information or query factory stock levels. It must not only be the “glue” that allows people to connect, but processes and platforms to connect as well. We’re not really seeing much of this yet, but this will truly distinguish a next generation platform from a current generation one.

A Financial Health Check Should Be a Pre-Qualification of Every Supplier Qualification

And every organization should review a financial health or risk report, comprised of, or augmented with, third party data, and, unless they are (or have in-house) financial experts, this should preferably be done by a third party. The reality is that in today’s data driven world, no organization should be surprised by a bankruptcy of a mid-size or larger supplier that has been in business for at least three years. The probability of the vast majority of these bankruptcies are now predictable by financial analysts and while they may get a few wrong (as some companies may shape up just in time and others may fail faster than expected for a non-financial reason), they get a lot right.

And it’s not like financial ratings are hard to get anymore. While they are not as insightful, as they work exclusively on credit data and stock data compared to released financial statements (which is where the early warning indicators hide), most of the big data / credit services track enough data to come up with a reasonable financial risk score that at least lets you know whether, from a financial perspective, the supplier could be reasonably safe or is currently very risky — and needs a detailed analysis. Moreover, a financial health-focused offering by RapidRatings, and their FHR (Financial Health Rating) Report (which has been around for almost a decade), provides not only deep insight into potential risk, but the magnitude of the risk and the hard data for the risk — as well as the insights — and can detect risks from early warning signs that have not yet manifested in observable behavior (such as late payments).  In addition, RapidRatings’ new Financial Dialogue offering, which works in conjunction with the FHR, identifies the most important questions you should be asking your suppliers based on their health rating.  (An when you look at just the FHR report, you wonder why every organization is not doing at least this detailed level of supplier financial health analysis before committing a large or strategic spend to a supplier when all the data they need can be summarized in an easy to understand fashion.)

Now, you might say that because only one vendor, today, offers this depth of a report, which wasn’t previously available, and because the organization has done just fine without it for almost a decade, that you don’t need it, but SI would like to disagree. With global sourcing constituting so much of your supply chain, you don’t really know that much about your suppliers, their health, or the conditions in which they operate. And if they are supplying a custom made component, a raw material in limited supply, or a specialized service, the cost of recovery could be much greater than the initial cost of supply. These reports are becoming a necessity as part of your risk management.

SI is not saying you have to use RapidRatings or subscribe to their FHR reports (although they should be on your shortlist), but that you should at least do deep financial analysis on all of your strategic suppliers and use a platform to do it.  And while SI expects that other vendors with the same degree of analytic capability, financial know-how, and supplier insight — specifically Resilinc, FusionOps, and Simfoni — will soon attempt to release similar offerings, with their own unique spin, SI doubts that these other providers will be able to match the depth provided by RapidRatings for quite some time, as they are, respectively, focused on supply chain resilience, big data insights, and analytics on the go.  (However, if you are  currently using any of these vendors, you should work with them on their new analytic offerings as they can still offer other insights into the suitability of the supplier for your operation, assuming the supplier is financially viable enough to work with in the first place.)

While financial risk or financial health is only one KPI that should be used to analyze suppliers before qualifying them for inclusion in an event, it is an important one — the organization needs a supplier that will stay in business. Another KPI that should be included is a comprehensive CSR (Corporate Social Responsibility) assessment, as you want responsible and sustainable suppliers, and this can be obtained as well from vendors such as Sedex Global and Ecovadis. Finally, once the supplier has been deemed financially stable and sufficiently responsible, an overall supply chain risk rating should be computed (based on geography, risk of natural disaster, political interference, etc.). This will require either a risk management vendor (such as Resilinc, Risk Methods, etc.) or an analytics vendor that pulls in feeds from one of these vendors.

It’s a lot, but if you can be sure in your supplier, that’s one less worry in your overly complex supply chain.

7 Secrets to Creating Supply Risk Management Leverage – and 3 More You Might Need

A recent pro-piece on “7 Secrets to Creating Supply Management Leverage” over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required] by the prophet and the maverick highlighted 7 strategies that an organization can be successful in risk management in the light of recent events that include, but are not limited to: the Hanjin Shipping bankruptcy, the Zika Virus, and the East Coast Oil disruptions.

The first three are a must.

1) You must aggregate your data.

No performance improvement, in or out of risk management, can happen without data and the process and performance visibility it brings. For more insight, and tips, into this, see the pro piece.

2) You must standardize your processes through collaborative means.

You can’t take a mish-mash random approach to risk identification and management — it must be coherent, cohesive, and collaborative. Otherwise, for every risk you prevent, two will slip past undetected.

3) Tuning — and minimizing — false positives and false negatives.

False positives are common, and the real risk is the false negatives, right? Wrong. False negatives pose a big risk, but for many companies, false negatives pose a bigger risk because, in order to minimize the possibility of false negatives, the organization will tune the system to let as many weak possibilities slip through in order to make sure no significant risks escape. However, in doing so, what will inevitably happen is that the number of false positives will increase significantly. You might be thinking, so what? Quick review eliminates them. Well, it does, but, over time, the risk reviewers become numb to, and tired of, the false positives and slowly, but surely, turn up the thresholds. Eventually they are raised so high that the false negatives increase and big risks slip in.

The next 4 are important, and most organizations will need to do at least 2 of them, and you can read the prophet and the maverick‘s piece on 7 Secrets to Creating Supply Management Leverage for more details, but here are a few you might also need.

8) Payment and Receipt Monitoring

Supply disruption in critical parts and goods is one of the worst supply chain disasters an organization can experience because an inability to sell the primary product line will result in a significant drop in revenue. Supply disruptions happen for a number of reasons, some of which are preventable (like not ordering from a supplier about to go bankrupt), some of which are not (like a natural disaster).

The best way to detect an issue is in delivery and invoicing monitoring. A supplier that is on hard financial times will submit invoices extremely promptly, follow-up quickly, re-submit on or before the deadline, and often take less than desireable early payment discounts. If they are at the point where they can’t even afford to get the credit to buy the goods and labour they need to make and ship your products, shipments will start to be late. Or maybe quality levels will drop and reject rates will rise. All of this can be detected early on with good internal data monitoring.

9) Impact Event Definition and Real-Time News Monitoring

Once your data is aggregated, and your supply chain mapped, you not only know your sole source suppliers (that need to be duplicated), but you also know your choke-points (where any number of events could impact your supply chain) and primary supply regions. (Just because you’re buying American doesn’t mean 80% of the raw materials aren’t coming from China!) You can easily define these regions, and the most likely supply chain impacts (port strikes, natural disasters, etc.) and then set up news and event monitoring to alert you to any event that could potentially impact your supply (including events that would impact two levels down the supply chain, which would cause a ripple event up). Now, its true that these are only so accurate and you might get a lot of false positives, but its better to quickly eliminate a few dozen false positives and get real time visibility into a critical component supply shortage in three months then find out there is no available supply left when a delivery date is missed.

X) Supplier Development

Let’s face it, the 7 steps in the prophet and the maverick‘s pro piece and the 2 steps above are good, but the best risk management you can do is instill the same commitment to risk monitoring, management, and prevention into your supply base (who will also do their best to push it down). A+ risk management can only do so much if your suppliers are C+ students at best.