Claritum – Medicine for the Procurement Soul, Part I

While Claritum might sound like the latest miracle drug for the sinus, it’s really the latest miracle drug for Procurement — and when SI says miracle, it’s because, properly used, it really does work better than expected.

So what does Claritum cure? SOOM. (Not VOOM, SOOM!) Spend Out Of Management. How does it cure this? Before we can answer that, we have to identify the main types of SOOM.

If Spend Under Management, SUM, is typically spend that is (strategically) sourced or requisitioned/ordered through the e-Procurement system (by way of a catalog, punch-out, requisition, or spot-buy) and tracked then SOOM is, simply put, everything else. What does this everything else look like?

  • maverick spend
  • one-time buys (for promotions, special projects)
  • print/packaging
  • Travel & Expense (T&E)
  • Event
  • MRO
  • Marketing Services
  • Uniforms and Apparel
  • Furniture
  • office products / consumables
  • low-dollar services and temporary labour
  • unique needs not met by current suppliers
  • misc. p-Card spend, including the strip club bill

Essentially, it is the “tail” spend of the organization (especially if it shows up on the p-Card of a certain executive or salesperson). In an above-average organization, this will typically be 20%-ish of spend. In a below-average organization, with a lot of spend managed by various departments and a lot of maverick spend, this could be 40%-ish of spend.

In other words, SOOM is everything Sourcing hasn’t sourced and Procurement can’t manage. Why can’t Procurement manage the spend? Let’s take the examples one by one.

  • one-time buys (for promotions, special projects)
    there is no RFX template, so the system is just by-passed
  • print/packaging
    thesystem isn’t set up to handle print jobs, so the staff just goes to staples or office depot
  • Travel & Expense
    there is no T&E platform support, so everyone just uses their own credit cards and expenses a month to three later because it’s easier
  • Event
    event management has unique requirements, and so is done offline
  • MRO
    service calls are unplanned, parts are bought as needed, and janitorial supplies are too insignificant for sourcing
  • Marketing Services
    marketing statements of work and account management requires special support, not in a standard RFX, so the tool is again bypassed
  • Uniforms and Apparel
    sizes, colours, etc. aren’t on the standard RFX, and it’s one time, and it’s easier to order through the supplier site, so that happens
  • Furniture
    it’s a one-time buy, so just go to the furniture store, put it on the p-Card
  • office products / consumables
    there’s no simple reorder form, so it’s simple to just have the accounts manager ship and bill you the monthly order and pay on the p-Card
  • low-dollar services and temporary labour
    it’s easier to call up the temp labour agency or the consultancy of choice, have them send the resource, and bill you later than try to go through the process
  • unique needs not met by current suppliers
    since the system isn’t set up for supplier discovery, you do the web search, have a few chats, find a supplier you feel comfortable with, have them ship the products, send the invoice, and then you instruct AP to pay it upon goods receipt
  • misc. p-Card spend, including the strip club bill
    for anything non-standard, if the p-Card is accepted, it is easier, especially if it’s spend you want to hide the spend until it’s too late for the organization to do anything about it (and there is a process that allows you to do so)
  • maverick spend
    for anything the buyer wants to break the rules for

In other words, the main reasons Procurement can’t manage the spend are:

  • the buyer doesn’t want the spend managed,
  • the process doesn’t support the spend, or, primarily,
  • the Sourcing and Procurement platform(s) don’t support the spend.

And that’s the kicker. Most platforms have been designed to capture the strategic or high-volume spend and customized to that, following the 80/20 rule under the assumption that most of the savings is in the top 80% which has the volume leverage and supplier relationship leverage. And while this is mostly true, especially since advanced sourcing can save an average of 10%, indicating that there is 8% potential savings, this 8% savings is only achievable over a 3 year timeframe, as most organizations only strategically source about 1/3 of their spend annually. In other words, an average organization repeatedly sourcing the same spend only saves about 3% annually. What goes unnoticed is the bottom 20% of spend which, due to lack of analysis and effort, typically contains an overspend of 10% to 30% (with an average overspend in the 15% range). This is significant. 15% of 20% is 3%, about the same as an organization pushes to the bottom line with strategic sourcing. And this spend is made every year, and this savings, if the spend could be managed, is available every year. If I’m losing out on 50% of my savings, I Want A New Drug!

So if you had a platform designed for this tail spend, which supported the right processes needed by the individuals who contribute to tail spend, most of this spend could be captured. And that’s what the Claritum platform is designed to do – capture all of the tail spend that buyers throughout the organization need to make. How does the Claritum platform do that? Come back for Part II.

Environmental Sustentation 22: Natural EMPs

In our post on environmental damnation 22, natural EMPs, we noted that EMPs, short for electromagnetic pulses, which are short, typically intense, bursts of electromagnetic energy that are generally disruptive, if not damaging, to electrical and electronic equipment, are a huge overlooked supply chain damnation because today’s information driven supply chains run on communication systems that control the chains, as well as the finances that pay for them. A single well-placed burst can take out an entire data centre, and if your organization is not setup in a distributed infrastructure with distributed off-site backups, your entire operation will come to a screeching halt — indefinitely!

No one thinks about this because people believe that the only real concern is EMP weapons, but these are only possessed by a few military operations that are unlikely to ever use them as they could destroy their equipment at the same time, but this is not true. Natural EMPs, which cannot be predicted and cannot be stopped, can do just as much damage and are much more likely to fry your equipment and bring down your supply chain than a rogue attack by a terrorist group that happened to get their hands on an EMP.

As per our damnation post, whether you realize it or not, there are a number of natural events that cause natural EMPs including, but not limited to:

  • lightning,
  • solar flares, and
  • earthquakes and volcanoes.

There is typically warning of the potential of each of these events, as well as the area and the likelihood, but the warning could be brief and the ability to prevent nonexistent, so any warning is likely to be too late.

So what can an organization do to protect against this damnation?

First of all, it can make sure that critical equipment is shielded, and located in shielded rooms. Low power EMPs will then not be much of a threat to that equipment.

Second of all, it can install equipment to divert as much of the pulse as possible. For example, a well placed lightening rod can divert lightening, and any EMP that might accompany it.

Thirdly, it can make sure it has a distributed infrastructure with real-time failover and distributed, real-time incremental back-up. Then, an EMP that takes out part of the IT operation in one locale will not take down the entire information (and financial) chain.

It’s not much, but it is enough. And at the same time, the organization also protects against fire, flood, and the FBI (raid) destroying a critical data centre.

RIP, PER

Fifty-Five (55) years ago today, the Pacific Electric Railway, once the largest electric railway in the world in the 1920s, ended operations.

It was a sad day in history because despite the perceived infrastructure cost, electric transportation can be a lot a cheaper than gas-transportation with the regular, repeated, rises in oil that have been happening over the past 40 years, especially when you consider improvements in electricity generation from sustainable sources including sun, wind, and water power that is almost free once the infrastructure has been paid for.

As this isn’t an engineering or energy blog, we won’t dive into pages of discussion as to why clean, smog-free electric streetcars are much preferable to the gas-guzzling busses of today, but simply mourn the passing of the streetcar and the great networks that used to power the great cities of North America.

Regulatory Sustentation 36: Labelling

As per our damnation post, while the the subject of labelling sounds harmless enough, it can still pose a nightmare for your supply chain. Products that are not properly labelled can be held up or seized at the border, seized for violation of state or federal labelling regulations from your warehouses or shelves, or result in massive fines and trade embargoes until the problem is corrected.

And it’s not as easy to adhere to labelling requirements as one might think. For example, in food and beverage, many jurisdictions require not only that all products contain nutritional information but also indicate whether or not the products are derived from GMO (Genetically Modified Organisms). In the tobacco industry, despite continuous threats of lawsuits from the tobacco companies, countries are starting to impose plain packaging laws and third parties dictate what packaging can and can not contain. In electronics, some countries are considering imposing laws that force a company to indicate the expected lifespan of the product being produced and how long it will be supported (as this is very important to a consumer spending hundreds, or thousands, on a new electronic device with the belief that the manufacturer is going to support the hardware and software for at least a few years). And different countries require different units, warnings, languages, etc.

This is not necessarily a bad thing, because consumers deserve to know what they are buying, but if multiple jurisdictions require different labelling requirements, it can be difficult to produce a label that satisfies all of the jurisdictions that operate under the same language. And if the company needs to produce a multi-lingual label that satisfies multiple jurisdictions in multiple countries, it can be a nightmare.

As per our damnation post, there are steps a company can take, namely:

  • the implementation of a Global Trade Management (GTM) solution,
  • careful review of each proposed label for full compliance before it is seen to the packaging supplier, and
  • monitoring for changes in labelling requirements so that the company does not get caught off-guard

but if a company is really ahead of the game, it will also:

    • monitor for proposed changes in labelling requirements and make sure it is in compliance before they happen if approval is likely and
    • monitor for key issues and complaints by buyers and find ways to proactively address issues before lawmakers tackle them and take a leadership position, which will improve the brand.

And, of course, make your labels as easy to understand as possible. If the product is packaged in 1L, don’t put nutrition counts for 278 ml against suggested daily values that aren’t even indicated on the package. NO one can quickly do that math in their head!

Organizational Sustentation 53: Engineering

Engineering designs the products that represent a product-based company’s life-blood, as they generate the cash necessary for operations. No company exists without revenue (NO Sale, NO Store), and revenue only comes from the sale of products or services. And those have to be designed by someone, and that someone is typically an engineer. And while Engineers are the top talent in the company, as well as the best educated talent, they can also be stubborn rigid perfectionists.

As per our damnation post, each engineer has a process, a design, a set of approved raw materials, and that is the process, the design, and the set of approved raw materials. Trying to convince them that there is another process, alternate design, or other raw material that could be useable is like trying to force molasses to flow up a glacier, as this would mean that they would have to accept that there are better processes, designs, and raw materials, and that they exist today (despite the engineer’s expensive research and experience).

And even if they are willing to accept there are better processes, design, and approved raw materials — they are perfectionists. The cost model might say that 98% reliability is good enough because, in practice, only 1% of units will break down before the warranty period expires and the cost of flat out replacement will have little impact on profit margin, but Engineering will say otherwise. They will insist on the supplier with 99% reliability even with a 30% cost increase because a good engineer makes the best product they can make, cost be damned.

So how do you deal with this damnation so Procurement can achieve some sustentation? Education.

The first thing you need to educate is that reliability is not the number one concern, safety is. If a laptop, music player, TV, etc. stops working, it doesn’t harm anyone. The buyer might be annoyed, but if you immediately rush out a brand new replacement, the buyer won’t be annoyed for long. As long as the product doesn’t short out and electrocute the user, there’s no issue with a little less reliability.

The second thing you need to educate them is that sustainability trumps supplier longevity. A company has to plan for the future, not rest on past laurels, especially if those past laurels are suppliers that have never been questioned. While every supplier was likely a great choice for one reason or another at the time the supplier was selected, the supplier might not be such a great choice today. All suppliers have to be reviewed at one point in time, and if there are more sustainable suppliers, they have to be investigated.

The third thing you need to do is educate them that you can help them identify suppliers that could have better processes, designs, or raw material formulations and save them a lot of time searching for new alternatives, as you will be scouring the market on their behalf and only bringing them suppliers that might truly have a better, or different, option. As the gate-keeper, you will save them a lot of time.

Engineers are your best allies – they are educated, rational, and want to do the right thing for the organization, like you. So show them how you can help, and be willing to listen (and learn) from them, and you will be able to overcome this organizational damnation.