Agile Procurement Can Work in the Private Sector … but the Public Sector?

A recent article over on the Public Spend Forum on Agile Procurement for the Public Sector – A Primer noted that Agile Procurement might just be what is needed to solve the complex challenge of public Procurement and solve the problem of the myriad of rules, processes, policies, and templates that became more and more complicated over time in the public sector.

According to the article, the answer is to adopt the best practice of agile development and move away from contract-oriented competitive Procurements to approaches that provide more flexibility for competitive dialog and negotiation (allowing requirements to be discussed, clarified, further defined, developed, and improved) using the iterative, collaboration, and change-oriented aspects of agile development.

This sounds great in theory, but we have to remember why we have a i>myriad of rules, processes, policies, and templates that became more and more complicated over time. As the author notes, Procurement mistakes would lead to trade complaints and lawsuits, and so more rules would be added, more contingencies, more processes layering on top of one another to reach where we are today.

Just imagine what would happen if all the rules were dropped in a flexible environment where the requirements of the contract could change each round. Since the changes would likely always favour one bidder over another, or at least be more aligned with the suggestion of one bidder over another, imagine the trade complaints and lawsuits that would arise. It would be chaotic! In order for an agile Procurement process to work, we’d need to revise not only our procurement principles across all levels of government, but also our legal system that made the requirements for filing trade complaints very restrictive.

In other words, agile Procurement for the public sector is a great theory, but the doctor doesn’t think it will be a reality for quite some time. However, there’s absolutely no reason to avoid it in the private sector. It’s a great way to get the best proposal(s) for the organization, and as long as your organization is open and transparent about the process it intends to use, quite resistant to legal challenges, as private organizations, unlike public organizations, can pretty much do what they want, especially if they are transparent about it and don’t break any laws. (And being collaborative vs. combative, in most jurisdictions, does not break any laws.)

So, if you’re private, be agile. If you’re public, be careful. You can be agile in your market research, but once you start the formal Procurement process, you better be traditional … at least for the time being.

Logistics is the new Black, but Procurement is the Rodney Dangerfield of the corporation!

the doctor recently stumbled on a piece published last year by Jeff Ashcroft over on LinkedIn where he said Logistics is the New Black where he noted that the word “logistics” has subtly worked its way further and further into the common lexicon thanks to massive marketing campaigns of courier, rail, and forwarding companies. This is making it the new black.

However, while it was never the Rodney Dangerfield of the Corporate World, as that distinction is reserved for Procurement, it was the black sheep. Needed, but kept at arms length … just in case.

However, now that savvy merchants are realizing that in their logistics function may lurk the well spring of the truly exceptional customer experience they seek, and must now deliver, logistics is taking center stage. This is good, and bad.

It’s great in that good logistics is a necessary condition for supply chain success, and if it’s not successful, the supply chain will never be, but it’s bad in that it’s only one half of the coin for supply chain success, the other being good Procurement. But, as SI has been saying for years, Procurement is the Rodney Dangerfield that don’t get no respect in the average organization (otherwise, why would almost half of Procurement organizations be without modern platforms).

When there is no easy correlation to the average consumer, when organizations like the Dairy Farmers of Canada say they are supply management, when HR organizations say they do Sourcing, and when even Apple, which has been repeatedly recognized to have the best supply chain in the world doesn’t talk about it (with the closest they come being Supplier Responsibility, probably as a result of breathing all that California smug), how is anyone to be expected to understand what a modern Purchasing, or Procurement, organization does? Especially when the term procure is often used in stories about rebels procuring supplies from the government (and this is the example of procure used on the urban dictionary, the military procuring what it needs from the private sector, or, even worse, often linked to prostitution. And purchasing, that’s what the office manager (in charge of office supplies) does.

In fact, all things considered, Procurement is probably lucky to even be the Rodney Dangerfield of the corporate world. While it might not get any respect, at least it gets recognition.

Maybe someday someone will find a way to bring sexy back to Procurement and then it will get some respect, and take the first step towards becoming the new black.

Fifty Years Ago Today …

Great Britain gets one heck of an endorsement when the territory of Gibraltar, a 6.7 km2 region on the southern end of the Iberian Peninsula which shares its (only) northern border with Spain votes 12,138 to 44 to remain British (and not revert to Spain).

Gibraltar, which has a constitution that allows it to govern its own affairs on a day to day basis (while ceding power such as defence and foreign relations to the British Government), is strategically important as it essentially controls the entrance and exit to the Mediterranean sea (which is only 13 km wide at this naval “choke point”), where half of the world’s seaborne trade passes.

Gibraltar serves as a reminder that it’s not always who you share a border with that matters, but who you share a cultural bond with. That’s why sometimes your best trading partner is half a world away and you need to effectively manage your global supply chain to make it happen.

Fifty Five Years Ago Today …

Evsei Grigorievich Liberman published “Plan, benefit, and prisms” in Pravda, a dissertation which proposed new methods of economic planning based on democratic centralism.

Democratic centralism is a method of leadership in which political decisions reached by the party (through democratically elected bodies) are binding upon all members of the party. His main proposal was that profits should be made the index of performance for Soviet planning, as well as the basis for bonuses to the personnel and directors of Soviet enterprises. This article stimulated a large debate and two years later, the Supreme Economic Council of the USSR converted some of the resulting conclusions into law, after some enterprises began to functionally experiment “on the basis of profit”. (Source: International Socialist Review, Vol. 26, No. 3, Summer 1965, pp 75 to 82 as transcribed by Einde O’Callaghan and found on the Ernest Mandel Internet Archive)

How is this relevant? It seems that no matter what the political climate, or what the governing structure, in the world of business, profit always seems to be top of mind for at least one party, especially when that party believes it’s their key to personal profit.

This means that there’s always going to be a stakeholder interested only in the bottom line and what it means to him, and that if you don’t keep this in the back of your mind, and come up with a decision that increased profit at least slightly, you’ll have a hard time getting it accepted, even if it is the most sustainable decision, the most corporately responsible decision, or the best long term decision from a value, and cost, perspective.

If profit can rear its ugly head in an environment governed by communism mindset, it can rear its head anywhere. Even in procurement which is supposed to focus on value creation and cost reduction. Keep this in mind when trying to ascertain, and balance, the desires of multiple stakeholders.

Introducing LevaData. Possibly the first Cognitive Sourcing Solution for Direct Procurement.

Who is LevaData? LevaData is a new player in the new optimization-backed direct material prescriptive analytics space, and, to be honest, probably the only player in the optimization-backed direct material prescriptive analytics space. While Jaggaer has ASO and Pool4Tool, it’s direct material sourcing is optimization backed and while it has VMI, it does not have advanced prescriptive analytics for selecting vendors who will ultimately manage that inventory.

LevaData was formed back in 2014 to close the gaps that the founders saw in each of the other sourcing and supply management platforms that they have been a part of over the last two decades. They saw the need for a platform that provided visibility, analytics, insight, direction, optimization, and assistant — and that is what they sent out to do.

So what is the LevaData platform? It is sourcing platform for direct materials that integrates RFX, analytics, optimization, (should) cost modelling, and prescriptive advice into a cohesive whole that helps a buyer buy better when they use and which, to date, has reduced costs (considerably) for every single client.

For example, the first year realized savings for a 5B server and network company who deployed the LevaData platform was 24M; for a 2.4B consumer electronics company, it was 18M; and for a 0.6B network customer, it was 8M. To date, they’ve delivered over 100M of savings across 50B of spend to their customer base, and they are just getting started. This is due to the combination of efficiency, responsiveness, and savings their platform generates. Specifically, about 60% of the value is direct material cost reduction and incremental savings, 30% is responsiveness and being able to take advantage of market conditions in real time, and 10% is improved operational efficiency.

The platform was built by supply chain pros for supply chain buyers. It comes with a suite of f analytics reports, but unlike the majority of analytics platforms, the reports are fine tuned to bill of materials, component, and commodity intelligence. The reports can provide deep insight to not only costs by product, but costs by component and/or raw material and roll up and down bill of materials and raw materials to create insights that go beyond simple product or supplier reports. Moreover, on top of these reports, the platform can create costs forecasts and amortization schedules, track rebates owed, and calculate KPIs.

In order to provide the buyer with market intelligence, the application imports data from multiple market fees, creates benchmarks, compares those benchmarks to internal market data, automatically creates competitive reports, and calculates the foundation costs for should cost models.

And it makes all the relevant data available within the RFX. When a user selects an RFX, it can identify suppliers, identify current market costs, use forecasts and anonymized community intelligence to calculate target costs, and then use optimization to determine what the award split would be, subject to business constraints, and identify the suppliers to negotiate with, the volumes to offer, and the target costs to strive for.

It’s a first of its kind application, and while some components are still basic (as there is no lane or logistics support in the optimization model), missing (as there is no ad-hoc report builder, or incomplete (such as collaboration support between stakeholders or a strong supplier portal for collaboration), it appears to meet the minimal requirements we laid out yesterday and could just be the first real cognitive sourcing application on the market in the direct material space.