Category Archives: Technology

Don’t Fall for the FUD!

Now that money is trickling back into technology budgets, many vendors are going on the offensive again. As a result, you need to be ready for the emergence of the vendor FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, Doubt) machine that is sure to resurface. We’ve already tackled how you calculate the true TCO/TVM of each product under consideration, thereby helping you to dispel the first piece of FUD you’re sure to hear, which will be along the lines of “we’re the cheapest and have the highest ROI, while our competitor is the most expensive and your ROI will be negative if you go with them“, but once you get past this, any vendor with a decently aggressive sales force will have more FUD loaded up and ready to fire (if they feel they are at a disadvantage). Here are three common pieces of FUD that, to be blunt, don’t mean nothing.

  • Our competitor is being sued (by us).So? Many of the lawsuits in this space are nothing more than desperate attempts by the bigger vendors, who haven’t innovated in years, to literally sue their smaller competitors out of commission with baseless lawsuits that plaintiff hopes will be too costly for the defendant to defend (as the plaintiff will attempt to draw the discovery phase out for years before the case gets inevitably thrown out).
  • Our competitor can’t do Fliggle-Flaggle-Floogle.Many vendors with less competitive or innovative offerings will focus on one or two impressive sounding (but essentially worthless) features that their competitors don’t have and turn up the tech talk dial to eleven in hopes of confusing you into buying their product. Don’t fall for the tech talk. It’s not about the technology, but about the value it can deliver to your organization. And sometimes its best not to buy the technology at all, but to contract with a consultancy or BPO who can maximize its potential (especially if the value curve flattens out quickly, as it does with tactical spend analysis [reference]).
  • You have to go all-in.Many providers will insist that you have to buy the whole suite, complete with licenses for every user in the organization, or you won’t realize the full value available to you. So what? It’s not about how many pennies you can squeeze out of the technology, but about how many pennies you can push down to the bottom line. Let’s say you can buy a solution for Procurement only from a competitor for 50K and that you expect you would drive 500K in savings from the purchase. Now let’s say you can buy their solution for the whole organization for 250K and drive 1.250M in savings. Which is better? The Procurement solution. It has a 10X ROI, compared to the 5X ROI the full organizational solution offers. Furthermore, when you look carefully, you see that the extra 200K only saves you an additional 750K, which is an ROI of only 3.75X. Yes, you want to save that additional 750K, but if you keep looking, you might find another 50K point solution from another vendor that will save you 500K of that 750K, which gives you another 10X ROI (and makes the organizational solution a bad buy since you’d now be spending another 150K to save 250K, which gives you an additional ROI of only 1.67X …. which means that one stumble on the organizational solution path and you would have been better off with the (much) less expensive and (much) lower risk point solutions).

And don’t forget, if the management/ownership team hasn’t changed much, what Tweety Bird has been saying for years still holds true. Don’t get fooled. Once a bad old putty cat, always a bad old putty cat.

Share This on Linked In

AECsoft: SIM-Powered e-Negotiation, Part I

AECsoft, a Houston-based provider of Supplier Information Management (that also has offices in Atlanta, Las Vegas, and Shanghai), Supplier Data & Diversity, and e-Negotiation solutions, is a unique platform offering as they have a very competitive (and very configurable) Supplier Information Management (SIM) platform (that can be augmented with third party supplier [diversity] data) as well as a solid e-Negotiation platform that will meet most of the needs of many mid-market companies. Most SIM companies focus mainly on SIM, SRM (Supplier Relationship Management), SPM (Supplier Performance Management), and when they branch out they root into extensive, customized, risk, compliance, or sustainability solutions. Furthermore, most e-Negotiation platforms, once they have gone as deep as they can in terms of surveys, score-carding, and multiple auction formats, branch out into (stronger) spend analysis, contract management, optimization, and (corrective) action management. In comparison, AECsoft has taken a dual approach in its efforts to create what it calls a 360° Supplier Management solution that allows you to discover suppliers, manage their information, use that information in sourcing events, and then manage their performance during contract execution — in a manner that can be customized for each client. Given that they have over 200 customers, including some of the most progressive sourcing organizations in the world, it’s obviously paid off for them to this point, but I have to wonder how they are going to fare going forward given the divergent messaging in the SIM and e-Negotiation spaces and the number of best-of-breed players now competing in each. However, that’s a question for the analysts as we’re concerned about what they have and what they can do for you.

To this end, we’ll start with a review of the Supplier Information Management capabilities, which are used by over 400,000 suppliers that are managed by over 30,000 buyers at over 200 large corporate clients, around half of which are large multi-nationals (and many of which belong to the who’s who of supply chain innovators). SIM is their most mature platform, with development dating back to company inception in 1997 and production dating back to their first implementation in 1999, as well as their most extensive. The platform is setup to let new suppliers self-identify, buyers pre-qualify (before an e-Negotiation event, so the event can focus on negotiations and not discovery), and evaluations to be conducted in a 360° manner if necessary. Compliance can be enforced during the on-boarding process (as registrations will not be marked as complete and ready for review until all fields are filled out and necessary documents uploaded), status can be monitored (as alerts indicating expiring certifications can be set-up at any time and continuously monitored), and reviews can be scheduled in advance and pushed out at any time.

The system can be configured to track any kind of information you want — general, business data, contacts, classifications, safety & insurance, quality, certifications, product & service information, risk and so on. In addition, category/answer specific questions and workflows can be configured for any category, sub-category, or question which is answered with a certain option. For example, if a supplier indicates they supply laboratory equipment, you can ask what kind — balances, centrifuges, pumps, valves, piping and tubing, and if they indicate piping and tubing, you can bring up questions on pressure, diameter, etc. Basically, it’s your standard workflow-driven SIM where the supplier, who can access and update all of their information at any time, maintains its own information, by way of one or more authorized delegates. In addition, when the supplier logs in, the supplier sees all of the outstanding information requests that need to be completed — new requests, certificate updates, data confirmations, scorecards (self-scoring or buyer scoring), and so on. AECsoft put a lot of work into their supplier portal to make sure it was at least as easy for the supplier as it is for the buyer and it shows.

And, of course, the platform can be integrated with multiple external data feeds which capture diversity data, financial/risk data, and OFAC data, among other data sources, and which can automatically check SSN and EIN data in the US.

Finally, the platform is Hybrid SaaS, which means that AECsoft can deploy and host it for you or you can deploy it inside your own four walls. Unless you’re in Finance, Gambling (Casinos), or Pharmaceuticals, and are ultra-concerned about security and have top IT security pros in-house, I would recommend you follow the lead of most of their clients in other verticals and go SaaS. However, should you choose to go in-house, you can take solace in that the current version of the platform is built on .Net 3.5, MS SQL Server, and XML … and there are tens of thousands of developers out there familiar with the technology stack (which is 100% web-based in delivery).

In our next post, we’ll discuss the e-Negotiation platform.

Share This on Linked In

Yes, Austin, Dashboards are Dangerous and Dysfunctional!

Given my long-time stance that dashboards are dangerous and dysfunctional, I was absolutely thrilled by this recent article in Intelligent Enterprise on how “metrics can lead in the wrong direction” which quoted Robert D. Austin, author of Measuring and Managing Performance in Organizations who said:

“Kaplan and Norton’s cockpit analogy would be accurate if it included a multitude of tiny gremlins controlling wing flaps, fuel flow, and so on of a plane being buffeted by winds and generally struggling against nature, but with the gremlins always controlling information flow back to the cockpit instruments, for fear that the pilot might find gremlin replacements. It would not be surprising if airplanes guided this way occasionally flew into mountains when they seemed to be progressing smoothly toward their destinations“.

If the doctor had a hall of heroes, Robert would have to be the first inductee! Not only will your staff be lulled into a false sense of security when all of the gages in the dashboard are in the “safe” zone (and not look for the faulty wiring about to spark a devastating explosion), but, and this is especially true if their compensation is based on those numbers, they’ll start to perform dysfunctionally if such behaviour improves the score. For example, many call centres once thought (and some still do) that number of calls processed was a good metric. The result? The reps, who do their best to get you off the phone as soon as possible, don’t take the time to understand the true nature of your problem and instead focus on a “quick fix” to get you going again (even if such a fix, like “reboot”, doesn’t fix the issue and will only result in the problem re-occurring again and again). As a result, not only did the number of calls processed a day increase, but the total number of calls processed by the organization increased, because people have to call multiple times to get their problem solved. Not good. Not good at all.

Share This on Linked In

Know Your Software TCO & TVM

I’m a big fan of SaaS (Software-as-a-Service). I’m a big fan of the many benefits it offers, including almost instant deployment, immediate upgrades, and the fact that the provider handles the administration, maintenance, security, upgrades, backups, and other IT headaches that most companies just don’t have the IT resources for. And I’m a big fan of the economies of scale that are inherent in a true multi-tenant instance. But I am not a big fan of the recent marketing by a number of the vendors in the space that have recently gone “on-demand”. Most of these new “On-Demand/SaaS” providers have taken a myopic focus on TCO in their marketing, and are making strong claims that On-Demand/SaaS is always cheaper – which is not true.

Regardless of the software delivery model you select (on-site, hosted/ASP, on-demand/SaaS), there are a lot of factors to consider with respect to the Total Cost of Ownership and which model is cheaper ultimately depends on the specifics of the vendor pricing and your internal costs of support. A true multi-tenant SaaS provider who takes full advantage of the economies of scale across a large customer base and who passes those savings on to you will often be cheaper, but this is not always the case. Some On-Demand/SaaS providers aren’t as cost efficient as they claim, some solutions require a lot of manual (data) maintenance and user support (which results in hefty service fees), and, let’s face it, some providers, who will do a magnificent job of convincing you that on-site costs more than it actually does, will charge as much as they can get and use the bulk of your monthly subscription fees to line their pocket books with large annual bonuses. If you can’t calculate the true TCO of each solution under considering, you’ll never know which solution is more cost effective and when you’re truly getting a good deal.

I’ve addressed this issue in the past for e-Sourcing and e-Procurement systems in my post on uncovering the true cost of on-premise sourcing & procurement software (spreadsheet), but since many of you will soon be buying / upgrading again now that money has finally started to trickle back into your budgets, I thought I’d address it again. Especially since the calculation isn’t that much more involved for just about any type of Supply Management technology you might be considering. Basically, all you do is compute the (expected) x-2, x-1, x, x+2, and x+2 year amortized solution cost for the length of time, x, that you expect to maintain and use the software (based on typical enterprise solution lifespans in your organization) for each product under consideration, compute the average annual amortized cost, compute the expected savings, and select the solution with the highest ROI that best fits your organization.

Depending on the delivery model, the following will contribute to the total solution cost:

  • License Cost
  • Maintenance Costs
  • (Expected) Upgrade Costs (to Major Versions)
  • Base Hardware & Networking Costs
  • Hardware Upgrade Costs
  • (3rd Party) Data Costs
  • Database / Data Warehouse Costs
  • Application Server Costs
  • Reporting / Analysis / Optimization Engine Costs
  • Other Required Software Costs
  • System Design, Implementation & Integration Costs
  • Security Costs
  • Support Costs
  • (Re-)Training Costs

You calculate the total cost for each time-frame on a cost component basis using expected upgrade schedules, pricing trends, and expected utilization curves. Then you divide the expected total cost of ownership by the time frame and you get your annual amortized cost, or TCO by year.

Then you compute the expected savings by computing the expected cost savings in each of the following primary dimensions:

  • spend reductions (you expect to realizeequal to savings you expect to negotiate minus savings you expect to lose to maverick spend)
  • efficiency / productivity improvements
  • risk mitigations (which prevent losses due to supply disruptions, non-compliance fines, etc.)

Finally, you can compute the (annual amortized) ROI, or the Total Value Management, of each solution as the (annual amortized) expected savings / expect cost. Then you can truly compare each solution under consideration on a cost, and value, basis.

Share This on Linked In

5 Browsers and the Modes of Transportation They Resemble

This post by Caldwell Tanner on College Humor on the “5 Browsers and the Modes of Transportation They Resemble” is really cool. You have to check it out. The graphics are great!

  • Firefoxfairly well rounded but nearly unusable …
  • Safariwhile very efficient, its quality is vastly exaggerated …
  • Operasome people really love it, everyone else …
  • Internet Explorerworthless, but good for …
  • Chromevery fast, that’s about …