Technological Sustentation 90: Open Source

Open Source, which not only gives us free software, but some of the best software out there, should be a great thing, and it is, but from a Procurement point of view, it’s a damnation. Why?

  • How do you cost it?

    There’s no free lunch when you have to wash the dishes — for the entire Bawabet Dimashq Restaurant — and there’s no free software. It has to be customized, maintained, and supported. This takes people, and that costs money.

  • How do you defend against it?

    Chances are you will find that the software doesn’t quite do what you need, and then you will need to augment it. But under open source terms, you have to release those modifications. And that will be helping your competitor, won’t it?

  • How do you defend your investment against it?

    When a purveyor of proprietary software comes through the door and offers you its SaaS platform for half of what IT thinks it will cost to maintain your platform, how do you convince the CEO the customized open source software you want is the right way to go?

Now, in our world, it’s not usually the case that open source is the way to go, as modern providers of SaaS platforms, or at least those that aren’t too greedy, have made them such that they can offer better, faster, and cheaper alternatives than in-house open source. But that doesn’t mean proprietary will solve all of your platforms. Every organization is unique, and while SI expects there is a proprietary platform that can be configured to meet the majority of your needs, there might be a situation where something custom is needed, and the best way to build it is on open source technology. So how do you deal with the organizational pushback?

1. Know Your Unique Needs.

The first question is, why do you need it. There has to be a reason besides you want it, you like it, you think it will be cheaper than the alternative, or you think it will be the most flexible. If you’re gravitating towards open source, there should be one or more unique requirements that only open source can meet, these should be well understood, and you should be able to clearly convey why.

2. Know the Risks … and Have a Game Plan to Address Them.

Open Source brings unique advantages, but it also brings unique risk. Who is going to support the platform day to day? Maintain it and fix the bugs? Add new functionality and integration capability as the organizational platforms change? And how can you be sure someone didn’t sneak something proprietary in there, either on purpose or by accident, and you won’t be accused of IP theft or a license infringement and have to tack legal costs onto the bill (as there is no provider to indemnify you)? All of this is addressable, and controllable, but you need to be aware of all the risks, and have a game plan to mitigate them up front, or getting any open source project approved in an organization that still wants a one vendor platform and “one neck to choke” (that is outside the organization) will be an uphill battle.

3. Know the Costs … and the Value of the benefits.

Make sure to understand all of the costs of the solution, both hard and soft, as well as an expected value of the unique benefits that the open source solution brings, and add those to the cost equation of the best non-open source alternative. If the open source will allow for a drastic reduction in the manpower required to complete a workflow, allow for the organization to harvest a lot of market insight without paying for costly, marked up, data subscriptions, or provide some other cost saving, that is extremely relevant and the value ratio of the solution could even out when compared against the best proprietary solution. And having these value models worked out can go a long way to mitigating the “but it costs more for IT to maintain” dissension.

Organizational Sustentation 56: Legal

While Legal is often out of sight, out of mind, Legal can be quite the thorn in Procurement’s side, especially when Procurement wants to do something that Legal doesn’t think is a good idea. Chances are Procurement has done its research, and due to extenuating circumstances (a supply line went down, an operational centre was damaged by a natural disaster, etc.) knows that the organization might not have a choice, but that doesn’t mean that Legal is going to agree, or sign off.

But that is only one example of how Legal can be an Organizational Procurement Damnation. As per our original damnation post, Legal is run by the Chief Consul who reports to the CEO, a Chief Counsel who will order his organization to do what he believes the CEO wants done, even if that’s not what anyone else wants. If the CEO says to get standard contracts in place, the Chief Consul is going to order standard contract templates for all direct materials and services. If the CEO is worried about child or slave labour in the supply chain, Legal is going to order each and every supplier vetted, immediately.

And while this insistence on onerous clauses or tunnel vision can be bad, the minute you want to obtain a “Contract” Lifecycle Management solution, a whole new level of damnation emerges. Legal is going to immediately insist that “contracts” are their domain and they need to be the owners of the contract solution. And this is very bad from a Procurement perspective because all Legal typically cares about is contract creation (drafting, authoring, and signing), contract archival, and contract retrieval and their definition of a Contract Management solution is one with strong drafting and authoring capabilities, version control, audit trails, clause repositories, Microsoft Word integration, etc. This is only a very small part of the 3-phase CLM process that starts with a need identification and ends with a proper post-mortem, and a process that depends heavily on a successful sourcing exercise (to identify the right buy) and a successful supplier management process (to insure the right products and services are obtained at the right price at the right time at the right location in sufficient quantity and of sufficient quality). While a good contract is critical, as it must accurately capture everything leading up to the creation and spell out what will happen after signing, it is a very small part of the process and the best contract in the world is useless if you can’t execute. Plus, Legal can continue to use whatever they use now to create contracts, so it’s not like lack of a strong contract authoring solution is holding them back.

So what can you do to prevent Legal from being a thorn in your side?

1. Consult them early in a strategic project or one with urgent timelines.

Let them know what is being sourced, why, what the critical requirements are, and when the contract will be needed by. Ask them for their major concerns, standard organizational requirements, and any issues they will be looking out for. Some of the requirements Legal says it will insist on might be ridiculous and might require some internal negotiation, but the last thing you want to be is blindsided during what you believe will be a cursory review and signature from Legal. Get ahead of any issues and everything will go smoother.

2. Meet with them on at least an annual, if not quarterly, basis to identify operational or emerging concerns that they would like Procurement to be on top of, and get on top of them.

If they are worried about child and slave labour, potential payments to terrorist organizations, poor environmental reputation in the supply base, Procurement can present a solution (such as a CSR monitoring platform) and get them to help Procurement get the funding it needs to monitor such issues (and reduce operational risk). Which recommendation is going to carry more weight with the C-Suite when money is involved — the CPO’s, or the Chief Counsul’s?

3. Regardless of what the vendor calls it, you want a “Sourcing Execution Lifecycle Management with Strong Contract Support” solution.

Legal will still stick their nose in, especially since they will have to use the contract module, and try to sway you towards a solution of their choice, but a properly framed request will increase Procurement’s chance of obtaining the right solution. Make it clear that Procurement needs a solution to manage the Source to Pay lifecycle effectively, to ensure that it not only negotiates good deals but realizes them, and that Procurement would like that solution to revolve around the contract. Indicate that you have identified a few vendors with the key capabilities required for Procurement to identify, negotiate, and capture great deals, each of which appears to have a strong contract module, and ask Legal what they are looking for, indicating that their requirements will be included in the evaluation of the contract module and will influence the overall weighting, designed to bring the best value to the organizational overall. Also, if each affected organization is allowed to have one stakeholder representative review the components that affect them, and those reviews are averaged with Procurements, Procurement will have an easier time getting buy-in, as it will be able to say “if all things are equal, we will get the system with the contracts module better suited to Legal”. When the need, rationale for, and expected benefits of a solution are clearly communicated, it will be easier for all parties to work together, Procurement and Legal included.

Consumer Sustentation 74: Demand Planning

Demand Planning is a damnation. Why? As per our original damnation post,

  • traditional demand planning models require historical data
  • traditional demand planning models require market predictability
  • traditional demand planning models require market foresight
  • traditional demand planning requires knowledge of the expected price point

And how often in today’s constantly changing consumer marketplace, with new product releases coming faster and faster (to the point where your phone, laptop, and music device is out-of-date by a whole new release within a year), do you have good historical data, market predictability, and foresight? And how often can you be confident in the price-point, as a skunk-works product release by a competitor between sourcing and sale can force a price reduction to prevent inventory sitting on the shelves indefinitely.

So what can you do? (Besides burying your head in the sand like an ostrich?)

1. Get as much market data as you can.

Collect as much data as you can on your competitors imports, sales, and revenue using publicly accessible import data, analyst data, and company annual reports. It won’t be accurate, but with enough data you can often identify better trends than you could on the most similar product in your own inventory (which might not be similar, or recent, enough to be sufficiently relevant).

2. Have third parties conduct surveys on your behalf.

Sometimes the best way to gauge a market forecast is to actually conduct customer surveys and have a third party use the data to estimate demand for you. If you have no clue, the best thing you can do is admit it and get an expert to help you come up with a realistic demand forecast range.

3. Don’t focus a number, focus on a range and a potential rate of ramp-up or ramp-down.

If you know the demand is expected to be in the 100K to 200K units a month range, and the demand could double overnight, then you know that you need to contract for the low-end, but with a supplier that could ramp up to double production in a matter of weeks if necessary. And you have to negotiate a contract that allows orders to escalate, with pre-defined increases if the supplier is forced to work overtime (so you don’t get any billing surprises or animosity down the road).

4. Keep on top of sales data in real-time.

Be sure to get at least weekly PoS updates, and re-run the projections on a regular basis to detect an upswing or downswing early, so that you don’t get caught with your pants down, or, even worse, your pants off.

If you follow these tips, then you can get a reasonable grip on demand planning while your competitors flounder with the flounders.

Technology Sustentation 78: e-Privacy

Hot on the tails of data loss, comes the issue of e-Privacy. Privacy is a good thing, and e-Privacy is a better thing, but that doesn’t mean it’s not an eternal damnation to Procurement. Why?

As per our post on the technological damnation of data loss,

  • customers are always demanding more privacy rights,
  • oversight requirements are increasing as regulatory acts are multiplying, and
  • the technological sophistication required to achieve an acceptable level of security and privacy safeguards is now through the roof.

Add this to the customer fear combined with a lack of the technological understanding of the underlying security requirements to achieve e-Privacy, and it’s a very difficult damnation for Procurement to tackle. But that does not mean that e-Privacy is not capable of being tackled. Where do you start? First of all, prevent against data loss using the techniques in that post. Namely:

1. Identify the subset of data that needs to remain private.

Name, government identification number, medical record, etc.

2. Identify the systems necessary to process that data.

HR, Payroll, etc. Make sure the systems are secure, encrypt all the sensitive data stored in the application or the databases they access, and only decrypt the data for the properly authorized individuals.

3. Make sure all access to private data is logged and auditable.

And, most importantly, backed up in secure off-site backups.

4. Make sure that only the private data that is truly necessary is maintained in application systems.

Maybe you needed to do a full drug check, credit check, etc. on a potential employee as part of the hiring process, but besides “drug free” and “acceptable credit score”, does that data need to be maintained? No. Similarly, only a health practitioner needs full medical records.

5. Be sure to inform consumers of the measures you will take to protect their data.

A little education goes a long way.

LOLCat is Anxiously Awaiting Your Garden

While LOLCat appreciates the indoor lawn, now that spring has been with us for a month, LOLCat really wants to enjoy the outdoor garden again.

Also, LOLCat would like to remind you that some of the most famous people in history, ever since Nebuchadnezzar II commissioned the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, have commissioned famous gardens (including Thomas Jefferson, 19th American President), some of the most brilliant scientists have been gardeners (including Ralph Gardener, a famous research chemist), and many of your most beloved celebrities (including Oprah) are avid gardeners. It is said that the founding fathers love of gardening shaped their vision for America, and the British have always been enthralled by gardens (just count the number of famous public and private gardens in the greater London area alone).

Not only does gardening bring a number of expected, and unexpected (mental) health benefits, but it gives you a strong appreciation of the work that goes into raw material (food) production and, in turn, a greater appreciation for the complexity of the supply chain you manage a portion of on a daily basis. Remember, LOLCats are always smarter then they look. 🙂