Category Archives: Technology

1999


Oops out of time
So tonight I’m gonna party like it’s 1999
Yeah

1999, Prince

Somehow SI gets the feeling this song was playing on the oldie’s station when Aberdeen was penning their recent piece on “The State of Strategic Sourcing: Building a Context for the Next Decade”. In a nutshell, their required actions would have been okay if penned in 1999 as necessary actions for leading supply management organizations for the next decade (although, in reality, they would have only taken an average organization through 2007). But in 2011 for 2020? Let’s just say SI liked Ariba’s predictions that data will predict the future, outsourcing will explode, and sourcing geeks will go the way of the dodo better. (Even though I hope it’s just a ruse.)

Normally SI ignores Aberdeen, as they haven’t, in SI’s opinion, put out anything good in years (as they lost their last senior analysts in the space a few years ago), but after having this particular piece brought to our attention, SI just can’t ignore it and how behind the times it is. Let’s put it this way, if a supply management organization thinks that the required actions are new and next level, it belongs in the bottom of the barrel in the laggard category. Let’s look at these required actions from the executive summary:

Leverage e-Sourcing solutions to drive higher savings and automate manual strategic sourcing processes
Just like every leading supply management organization has been doing for the last 10 years? This is advice for 2020? An average supply management organization has already squeezed every penny they can out of simple automation and standard reverse auctions, which most e-Sourcing suites revolve around. e-Sourcing is still the foundation, but now it is just the beginning of your Supply Management journey, not the destination.

Utilize spend analytics to drive visibility into corporate spending and forecast savings for future planning and budgeting
Wow! Two big problems with this. First of all, after the last two years, every executive and his dog has a “spend analysis”, “spend visibility”, or “spend reporting” tool that tells him just how much the organization is spending. What he needs to know is where the savings opportunities are. Just because the organization is spending 50M on fuel doesn’t mean there are any savings in the category. Maybe supply management saw the sharp prices increases coming and locked in low rates just in time. Maybe the real savings is in temporary labour where only 10M is being spent but where rates are still, despite recent increases in average labor rates, 20% above the norm. Secondly, spend analytics can’t forecast future savings. That depends on demand and input costs. Basic spend analysis just tells you what you spent, not where prices are going or where demand is going. The organization needs a real data analysis tool as well as good demand and price forecasting tools to get that picture.

Align overall sourcing activities/processes with the goals and objectives of the greater organization
Really? And should we also put our underwear under our pants? Supply management leaders have only been saying this for how long? Maybe SI should lighten up a little as it’s the only piece of advice that’s right, as supply management must be aligned with the rest of the business to be successful, but if this is not common sense to any supply management leader (who is also a business leader), there’s a fundamental problem in the organization that no action will fix. Plus, it’s a requisite, not an action!

The only action for success that SI can give you where this report is concerned is to burn it. The same-old, same-old is not going to get your supply management organization through the next decade. That’s why SI is spending so much time discussing next generation supply management and highlighting the efforts being taken by thought leaders such as Greybeard Advisors, The Mpower Group, and The Hackett Group to get the word out there. Supply Management must get to the next level, and it’s not going to do that rehashing technology from a decade ago.

TMS Requires 100 Million, Does ERP Require 1 Billion?

A recent article over on Logistics Management that put[s] the spotlight on ERP had a great quote from Ben Pivar, Vice President and North American Supply Chain Lead for Capgemini regarding Transportation Management Systems (TMS) Pivar says that the economics of installing a TMS package on a client server, for example, doesn’t really work until you have nearly $100 million in freight spend and that’s why on-demand is so popular in that space.

SI has to agree. Unless a firm has tens of millions in freight spend, the costs of installation, maintenance, and usage tend to dwarf the benefits of using a TMS system. However, what’s even more important to note is that enterprise ERP (from a top vendor) is, on average, at least five, if not (usually) ten times, more expensive to install, integrate, maintain, and use than TMS. This would seem to indicate that the economics of traditional ERP don’t make sense unless your company has 1 Billion in spend, or at least 1 Billion in revenue. In other words, unless you’re a member of the Fortune 2000 or Global 3000, traditional end-to-end on-premise enterprise ERP is probably not for you. And it would appear that Oracle, one of the largest players, tends to agree. Why do you think it has advertisements stating it has 98% of the Fortune 500? It’s not just because the Fortune X, it’s target market, provide it with its biggest deals. It’s because Oracle also understands that unless a company has reached a critical mass, given the cost of the system, the company won’t get the advertised return (which is a key to keeping the company as a high-paying customer year after year).

However, every organization needs a good transaction store and data repository as analysis is key to supply management success. So what does this mean if you’re not one of the lucky ones? Don’t look at a a tradtional on-premise end-to-end ERP from a big boy. Look at either a newer, smaller, slimmed down offering from a smaller player, possibly based on an open-source solution (like Compiere), a suite from a provider that maintains its own transaction store, or a newer, slimmed down, SaaS offering from a traditional provider that can integrate with some BoB solutions in the cloud and offer an effective hybrid solution. Just don’t go for the billion-dollar solution, because your organization likely won’t get a return from the millions it will cost.

Trade Extensions: No Rest for the Wicked-ly Powerful – Part II

As per yesterday’s post, it’s been less than five months since we last checked in with Trade Extensions, who had traded up to a Fact Sheet User Interface and added a slew of new features, including improved RFI support, multi-dimensional rankings in e-Negotiation, Google Earth integration, new incumbent rules, and an OLAP foundation to reporting, including the implementation of a new n-way comparison report. Since then, Trade Extensions has been on a tear to add new functionality as fast as it can to make the platform not only one of the most powerful expressive bidding optimization platforms on the planet, but also one of the easiest to use — listening to its users (which include the Fortune 1000) and adding features and functions that make an average buyer’s life easier, taking usability to a whole new level yet again. And while earth-shattering technology improvements are cool, it is usability that is the ultimate key to to adoption, use, and, ultimately, cost avoidance and reduction in your sourcing organization.

Scenario Creation & Analysis

Not only are there new rules that allow partial awards to be fixed based upon existing scenarios, but the number of constraint categories has doubled. While there were only general and incumbent constraints in the past, there are now an entire category of scenario reference rules and post processing rules. With respect to scenario reference rules, not only can allocations be kept, but bids can be favoured or penalized as well. The post-processing rules are also quite useful. Allocations can automatically be rounded and allocations that don’t meet a minimum number of units can be removed (or re-assigned to the supplier who meets a minimum allocation with the lowest total cost).

Feedback Mechanisms

The buyer now has fine-grained control over what the supplier sees, and can even mix feedback types. For example, if the buyer only wants the top three suppliers to know they are top three, but suppliers four to six to know their exact rank, they can specify that specific rank starts at bidder four, and the top bidders default to “top 3”. In addition, if the supplier does not meet a minimum bid increment, which can be defined in a number of ways (including, minimum dollar or % decrease over last bid), the supplier gets a nice red error that the bid is not acceptable AND a message indicating the minimum increment required. Finally, and this is really cool, the user can define custom color-coded bid feedback fields based on dynamic formulas that now only let the user know where they rank, but how competitive their bid is (against the current bids from the competition) in English using a buyer defined scale such as “Competitive”, “Slightly Competitive”, “Not Competitive”, and “Not Acceptable”.

Plus, the buyer can now chat with users online in an integrated IM client, and immediately see who is online when they log in as it is a widget on their project management dashboard.

Odds and Ends

The “dashboards” for RFX and auction phases have also improved. The summary, bidder summary, and lot summary are now completely customizeable by the user, support custom fields, and user-defined colour codings in the rankings. In addition, there is integrated show/hide, drill-down functionality, and customizeable pop-up (bid, trend, and bidder activity) charts where a user can select one, some, or all of the rows in each report.

They have also added a basic workflow engine that allows buyers to initiate rate requests, lot requests, and allocation publishing requests of project managers / administrators when new needs arise during a project. This allows managers and supervisors to maintain control and a complete project history to be maintained. The workflow is fairly basic at the present time, but I suspect it will mature and fill out quickly given Trade Extensions’ track record of rapid application development over the past two years. (Especially since the feature is being used by a couple of very large companies.)

All and all, it’s a lot of new functionality in a short time frame that makes the tool extremely useable by an average buyer.

Trade Extensions: No Rest for the Wicked-ly Powerful – Part I

It’s been less than five months since we last checked in with Trade Extensions, who had traded up to a Fact Sheet User Interface and added a slew of new features, including improved RFI support, multi-dimensional rankings in e-Negotiation, Google Earth integration, new incumbent rules, and an OLAP foundation to reporting, including the implementation of a new n-way comparison report. Since, then, it would appear that Trade Extensions have been working around the clock to add a host of new features in auctions, reporting, award management, scenario creation and analysis, and feedback mechanisms. They are advancing the platform so fast that only a few companies in the space are currently keeping up with their rate of development. And while nothing added in the last few months is earth shattering, Trade Extensions has again taken usability to a whole new level, which is the key to adoption, use, and, ultimately, cost avoidance and reduction in your sourcing organization.

Auctions

Probably the biggest improvement is the new wizard-based interface that defines different types of RFX and Auctions, including Quick Quote and Simple Auction, that simplify event creation. In the new wizards, the user only needs to define the critical information necessary to create the event and can, if the user so chooses, define everything necessary to set up straight-forward RFXs and Auctions, including lots, on a single screen. While the workflow-driven wizards provided in many of today’s platforms are good, if you just need a quick quote or are auctioning office supplies, you just need to set it and forget it. The platform’s newfound ability to handle simple events with ease while simultaneously allowing for the creation of the most complex events one can think of is quite powerful for an organization that wants a single tool to handle the whole gamut of sourcing events. Now a user can define how much information is required to define an event and enter just that, whether it be a few pieces of information or a few hundred pieces of information. In addition, the new bidder UI is slick, clean, and quite easy to use.

Reporting

Trade Extensions, which supports the Fortune 1000, has added new multi-project reporting which allows for the creation of (roll-up / drill-down) reports across projects. The user can select any set of projects and any set of scenarios in those projects and create a roll-up or comparison report across those projects on any set of dimensions and facts that they choose, which can be organized in a user-defined row-column format. One of the things that Trade Extensions noticed was that a number of users, even when their new OLAP reporting was rolled out product-wide in January, were still downloading reports to Excel for the sole purpose of reformatting them into a preferred or dictated format. So they built this capability, including pivot table functionality, into the tool. Combined with the ability for a user to create fields defined on just about any formula (macro) the user can imagine, there is now no need for a user to have to export to Excel for analysis or report formatting. It’s a very impressive leap forward in reporting and goes well beyond the reporting capabilities of most of the on-line sourcing and procurement platforms that SI has seen.

Award Management

Trade Extensions has created a new set of rules that allows a user to define a scenario that uses allocations from an existing scenario for any subset of the award that they want to fix. No longer does a user have to copy the scenario and define fixed award rules, which can quickly lead to unsolveable scenarios if the user has 20 rules and messes up one or two to create a conflict that results in an unsolveable scenario. Just point at an existing scenario where part of the award is acceptable, indicate that the award for items X and Y at locations A through M are acceptable, and the tool will fix those allocations and build a smaller model that will solve faster (instead of a bigger model with more constraints that solves slower).

Come back tomorrow for Part II which will address the rest of the cool new features in Trade Extensions’ new release.

Outsourcing is More Than Throwing It Over the Wall

While outsourcing may be on the rise, it’s still not the holy grail of cost savings. The number of companies that bundled two more or more core F&A processes into an outsourcing deal may have doubled in 2010 (as compared to 2009), but it’s still no reason to rush into one. Even if it is, on the surface, getting cheaper (as the average contract value appears to have shrunk almost 40% since 2004), it will not necessarily save you money. First of all, there has to be money to save. If the organization has a global services unit that is best in class in a process, the organization is not going to save much by outsourcing. Maybe a few percentage points if the organization contracts to a best in class outsource provider that can leverage economies of scale, but that’s it. It is hardly worth the risk of losing the knowledge. Secondly, and this is the usual reality, if the process is broke, throwing it over the wall is not going to gain any efficiencies or savings, at least in the long term.

A recent article in CFO Magazine on how “outsourcing matures, slowly” did a great job of making this point with a quote from Mark Satchel of Skandia, a European investment firm that signed a 175 million dollar multi-year outsourcing deal with HCL Technologies. Skandia hired HCL to develop applications and manage the infrastructure of Skandia’s legacy systems, and absorb 250 of Skandia’s IT employees in the process. While it probably sounded great on paper, as it likely would have taken at least 25 Million in fixed recurring costs off the books, as well as the huge headache of managing legacy systems, which is something an investment firm wouldn’t be an expert in (or want to do), it was a poor decision.

Not only does such a deal “result in a great deal of inflexibility”, as Mark Satchel noted, but it doesn’t address the core issue. The reason that Skandia needed so many IT employees and a sophisticated data warehuse was because it was running on legacy systems. Skandia should have first modernized its systems and processes and then thrown it over the wall. Then, instead of having to go back and renegotate the outsourcing deal to contain the flexibility it needed to serve the “peaks and troughs” of its needs, including the need to update systems, it would have negotiated the right deal the first time. (And “the right deal” would have been considerably less as it’s a lot more cost effective to support new systems than legacy ones.) And Mark would have spent a lot less time wondering whether the gain on one side is lost on the other.

So before you throw that process over the wall, ask yourself:

  1. Is the process (and supporting technology) ready for outsourcing?
    If it’s not, fix the proces (and / or update the supporting technology) first.
  2. What can I reasonably expect to save by outsourcing?
    If only a few percentage points, it’s probably not worth it. If over 10%, then it’s definitely worth pursuing.
  3. What could happen and what flexibility do I need in the agreement to insure I don’t get caught holding the hot potato?
    Flexibile staffing? Variable throughput levels (because more invoices have to be processed over the holidays, for example)? The ability to include additional resources for system updates or replacements at pre-defined costs?

If you do, you’ll be better off.