Category Archives: Talent

Public Procurement in 2020 — Are You On Track? Part II

In yesterday’s post, we begin our discussion of Hansen’s predictions for public procurement in 2020, which were offered as a 5-part series last month in response to the 5 predictions of Bob Lohfeld (of Lohfeld Consulting) that were published in Washington Technology in early July. Yesterday we discussed the Government Market. Today, we will discuss Workforce.

In his piece, in a nutshell, Lohfeld prognosticated that:

  • The workforce will be more diverse based on population shifts away from cities, and professionals will be employed in a virtual world without regard to where they reside. Baby boomers will be in their 70s and still actively engaged in the workforce either on a part- or full-time basis.
  • Employees will work on global government projects where work is performed in virtual space and staffed by people from multiple countries brought together for their technical expertise, without regard to cultural or geopolitical backgrounds.
  • The workforce will be able to support the entire bid life cycle, instead of discrete segments such as proposals or capture. Technology proficiency will be mandatory, and those who are slow to adopt or resist technology entirely will face dwindling prospects.

Yes, work will become more virtual. Yes, work will continue to be staffed from people in multiple countries. And, yes, the workforce collectively will be able to support the life cycle, but how does this help? Like Hansen says, its lack of depth and imagination is tantamount to the empty calories of a Three Musketeers bar.

SI has to agree with Hansen – the real issue centres on the Clark and Fourastie three (now four) sector hypothesis of how a wealthy nation’s economy evolves. The hypothesis includes the extraction of raw materials (Primary), manufacturing (Secondary), services (Tertiary) and knowledge-based (Quaternary). The workforce will be aligned to where the economy is. Plus, as Hansen points out, multiple factors such as time, increased globalization, a weakened economy and political sensibilities can and do in fact intertwine into a convoluted landscape. And this effects the diversity of the workforce that comes together for any project.

Plus, what about the communication challenge? How do we deal with the situation where, literally, four generations work side by side on projects in the same (virtual) office location. How do we simultaneously communicate with people who have never worked without the internet and people who have never really used it and still have no idea of its potential? Until we answer this question, prognostication on the workforce for the average government organization is missing the point.

How to Screw Up a Procurement Job Interview

Last month, Charles Dominick of Next Level Purchasing ran a great post on “5 [Common] Ways to Screw Up a Purchasing Job Interview” that is a must read for anyone looking for a new Supply Management Job (which, if recent satisfaction surveys are to be believed, is the majority of professionals in the space). Charles’ must read advice indicated that the following WILL screw up your interview:

  • taking an interview late in the process
    as all future candidates are compared to the one once that candidate is identified
  • not being prepared for the most common interview question
    which, succinctly, is tell me about yourself
  • not distributing eye contact
    when being interviewed by multiple people
  • saying anything negative
    as you will not be seen as the proactive team player they want to hire and
  • using slang inappropriately
    as there is no guarantee that an interviewer is going to understand what you mean, and if you say you are hotter than a fox in a forest fire for the job, and the interviewer isn’t familiar with that phrase and a strong PETA advocate …

In addition, the following will also screw up the interview:

  • not dressing appropriately
    even if the company has a very laid back atmosphere in the workplace, don’t show up in shorts, a Hawaiian shirt, and sandals (as they need to know that you can make a good impression in front of a supplier)
  • over-stating your skills, experience, or knowledge
    as you will be interviewed by the best and brightest and they will find you out
  • not knowing the market for the common Procurement categories
    if the job is in the electronics component division and you know nothing about the state of the semiconductor market, that’s not going to look good when they ask if you have any ideas to control costs in that market
  • not knowing what the company does
    if they are an engineering company that primarily makes electronic components for personal entertainment and the automotive sector, but you only know them for their video game division, that’s not going to look good when they ask how you plan to reduce costs in the automotive division
  • not knowing the competition
    and this is doubly damaging if you walk into the offices with the product or logo of direct competitor anywhere on your person

Talent is Critical to Your Supply Management Organization

For those of you paying attention, you’ll notice that I recently did a four part series on Talent Management and, more specifically, a common Talent Management problem shared by many enterprises. Starting with a post that said If This is Your Advertisement for a Sourcing Manager, You Have a Talent Management Problem, which discussed one of the worst advertisements I have ever seen for a Supply Management professional, the series then moved on to explain that If You Want to Attract Talent, [You Need To] Start with a Good Advertisement, discussed What a Good Job Advertisement Might Look Like, and finished up with a post that addressed Now What [That] Your Job Advertisement Actually Attracted a Good Candidate. I did this because talent is critical to your Supply Management function. Without the right talent, you might as well fold up the operation and outsource it all to a third party because you won’t get anywhere unless you have the cream of the crop.

And we’ve known this for a while. Back in 2007, Procurement Leaders published a piece on how “People Do Matter Most, Really” that referenced a joint study undertaken by McKinsey & Company and the Supply Management Institute that found that high performing firms had high performing purchasing departments and that what matters is the people in the purchasing department, how talented they are, how motivated they are, and how they interact with the wider organization.

Specifically, the study found that purchasing departments that excel in these aspects of their activities achieve savings two and a half times higher than those that don’t. Furthermore, their positive influence branches out beyond the historical territory of PSM to include areas such as revenue, innovation opportunity generation, and the leadership of commercial change in the company. In more detail, high performing firms demonstrated annual purchasing savings of 3.5%, a 1.4% annual reduction in COGS, and an average EBITDA of 17.7%. Compare this to low performing firms that only achieved a savings of 0.6%, a 0.5% increase in COGS, an an average EBITDA margin of only 12.7%. And now that every dollar might mean the difference between survival and corporate death, an organization just can’t afford to not be high performing.

The reality is that, despite what some vendors and consultancies might have you believe, first rate platforms and processes are not enough. You have to have the people with the brains and the skills to use them. Back room paper pushers won’t cut it anymore. So do you research and attract some real talent. The bottom line will thank you.