Supply Managers are the Rock Stars of the Coming Resource Revolution … But

… the reality is that, in the majority of organizations, Supply Managers are still zeroes, not heroes, even though Professor Sheffi is taking the glass half full view in his article on “how a profession went from zero to hero” on SupplyChainMIT.com.

Supply Managers are only heroes in those leading organizations that were forwarding looking enough to let Purchasers gain influence in both the inbound and outbound supply chain and raise the profile of the organization in the eyes of both customers and suppliers. Their new practices, global view, and risk mitigation not only raised their profile, but also the profile of the organization as a whole. They were given more respect and authority, and soon after were the heroes of their organization.

But not every organization had the foresight of these leading organizations and, as a result, it is still only a select group of leaders that have truly embraced Supply Management and leaped the pond. Most organizations are still effectively in the dark ages and haven’t even embraced RFx or basic e-Invoice technology. While a considerable (but not necessarily a majority) of Fortune 500 / Global 2000 organizations have embraced Supply Management to some degree and some Procurement or Sourcing Technology, as you work your way down to mid-size and smaller organizations, the percentage of organizations that have embraced Supply Management and associated technology decreases dramatically.

Furtheremore, not only is there a huge number of organizations that have not adopted Supply Management, there is a huge gap between the enlightened and the ignorant. And the gap could mean the difference between uninhibited success and eventual bankruptcy.

So how do we spread the message to the masses and usher in the resource revolution?

Procurement – Why we really matter! (Repost)


This post originally ran on November 10, 2010. However, it is still as relevant today as it was then and, for those of you who did read it before, not too much of a distraction to you as we approach the World Cup Final :-;


Today’s guest post is from David Furth, VP of Marketing at Hiperos. David has been in Procurement for over 20 years and has held senior positions at Perfect Commerce, BasWare, RightWorks/i2, and Deloitte Consulting.

Procurement is on the verge of experiencing its next major transformation. During the past ten years, the emphasis has been on optimization – leveraging spend, improving the sourcing process, and becoming more efficient across all aspects of the P2P and Order-to-Cash value stream.

As a result of these improvements, companies now rely on suppliers, outsourcers, and other third parties more than ever. A fact now recognized by C-level executives, boards of directors, and regulators, alike. Why? The increased reliance on these third parties has occurred without implementing the same level of control or having the same level of visibility that was in place when the work was being performed internally. The result is increased risk to company performance and brand reputation.

As a result, forward-looking procurement leaders are transforming their organizations. They still maintain the same obligation to keep costs down. But they have added the responsibility to continuously assess risk, pre- and post-award, and introduce integrated processes and controls across their companies to mitigate that risk by working closely with other functional areas, business lines, and geographies. During the next few years, procurement will be looked upon to provide important guidance around how key external contributors to their companies’ value chains are managed.

This is why more and more procurement executives are stepping forward to introduce a consistent method for managing providers across a wider breadth of their extended enterprise. These executives recognize that just because the contract assigns responsibility/liability for just about “everything”, this does not absolve their companies from the responsibility of ensuring each provider is living up to all contractual obligations. This requires implementing management control programs that actively monitor both performance and compliance to help ensure suppliers are meeting all their obligations.

This is an enormous responsibility that requires consolidating requirements across a large number of stakeholders, communicating expectations to all providers, collecting information and documentation about current status, and collaborating with providers to remedy issues when shortfalls are identified.

To be successful requires a new attitude, a thoughtful approach, buy-in from key stakeholders, and the appropriate technology. Despite the best of efforts, responsibility or risk cannot entirely be outsourced.

So, when you consider the consequences of suppliers failing to meet their obligations, regulators handing out fines for poor oversight of third parties, and investors losing confidence in your brand, it is not surprising to see real action taking place. The past few years have made it abundantly clear, it is not a good strategy to expect that a great contract will get you great results, ensure providers follow the law, or prevent them from acting unethically. Therefore, it is imperative to have the appropriate level of controls to mitigate to the appropriate level of risk. This has not been the traditional way of thinking, but that is rapidly changing.

Thanks, David.

Do We Really Need Supply Risk Programs Anyway? (Repost)


This post originally ran on April 21, 2010. However, it is still as relevant today as it was then and, for those of you who did read it before, not too much of a distraction to you as we approach the World Cup Final :-;


Today’s guest post is from Pierre Mitchell, Director, Procurement Research and Advisory for The Hackett Group.

OK, now that I have your attention. Am I being provocative? Yes … and no. If the purpose of supply risk management is to ensure supply that is: available, reliable, high quality, well priced, supporting lowest TCO, ethically sourced, etc. (per the enterprise mission and brand), then we really “just” need to clarify what constitutes the performance of supply and the causal factors which impact it. But, this is a big “just”. It means first translating the performance of supply from the business (i.e., the true ‘risk owners’ who ultimately own the performance of supply) to the inbound supply chain to a commodity to the supplier and even down to the part/spec/site level — and then ensuring that your processes for extended network design, sourcing, and supplier management are addressing the risk factors that can impact that supply performance. That’s a tall order to expect as a bottoms-up outcome.

For example, if you look at a company’s sourcing and supplier management processes, you might find risk-oriented knockout criteria in an RFI. Or you might find a regulatory compliance driven process in supplier measurement. But for the latter example, do you have an explicit risk score in your supplier scorecard? Most organizations don’t. There is a direct analog to the quality area here in terms of placing emphasis on process capability and managing upstream causal factors. A TCO model that includes quality costs (i.e., a ‘cost of quality’ model) is not only similar, but actually overlapping with the ‘cost of risk’. In other words, you can pay for risk prevention now or pay for external failure later.

This is why, although you should theoretically be able to bake your supply risk management processes systematically into your existing supply management processes (sourcing, SPM/SRM, etc.), the fragmented and reward-biased performance measures don’t encourage this end-state approach. This is why a bottoms-up process usually does not work and it requires that Procurement/SCM not only work with the natural risk owners to build the cost/risk models, but also use that to have the top-down discussion with senior management on how the firm wants to deal with it and what is the cost of doing nothing. To quote the rock band Rush: “If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice“. (Freewill) And for some organizations, they might be able to tie into an existing enterprise risk management and corporate sustainability governance structure.

Another important strategy is to have a good diagnostic, and some external benchmarking intelligence, as part of this process — especially when trying to justify the effort beyond ‘it is the right thing to do’. Showing where you are vs. other firms and how well you/they are performing in supply risk (and comparing that performance to capabilities) is a good way to support the discussion. And so is having a good ‘cost of risk’ model. But quantification is tricky.  Firms need to arm themselves with some good insight on elevating the conversation. Why? To get more attention, resources, and proper measures/alignment that cascade back down to get baked into the processes. Once they’re baked in, you won’t need a ‘program’ anymore — you’ll have a proper risk-adjusted process.

Thanks, Pierre!

A Futuristic Look at High Definition Sourcing (Repost)

This post originally ran on March 10, 2011. However, it is still as relevant today as it was then and, for those of you who did read it before, not too much of a distraction to you as we approach the World Cup Final 😉

Today’s guest post is from Paul Martyn (VP of Marketing), who recently penned a guest post on Achieving Category Excellence with High Definition Sourcing, to look ahead three years when High Definition Sourcing and Next Generation Sourcing Techniques (which include Value Focussed Supply Management Techniques) are commonplace in the leading Supply Management organizations and put together a picture of what e-Sourcing might look like.

It’s 2014. I’m a senior sourcing professional at a large multi-national company and I’ve got major sourcing programs planned for categories that share the following characteristics:

  • Large amounts of spend
  • International, operational, marketing and/or finance stakeholders
  • Complicated cost models
  • The category leader is frustrated with traditional sourcing techniques
  • The category is avoided by the faint of heart
  • Dynamic corporate, supplier, and market conditions

Sound daunting? Maybe even impossible to succeed? Three years ago, I would have shared your skepticism and been completely frustrated by the sheer complexity of tackling these challenges. When I look back, there was a lot holding me and my team back, including:

  • A one-size-fits-all approach to sourcing:
    For successful sourcing of complex categories, what my team really needed was the ability to define the world of their particular category. A flexible framework would allow us to state the opportunity/problem, gather the necessary inputs to evaluate possible reactions, make a decision, and track the implementation and monitor the changing conditions around the decisions we’ve made to constantly take advantage of changing realities — all while staying consistent across the organization.
  • Silos, silos everywhere and not a bridge in sight:
    The conventional approaches I used created nonsensical boundaries across functions. I couldn’t get engineering, distribution, supply chain, and customer service aligned or more importantly — involved in the decisions. Worse, we weren’t really in problem-solving mode, these were merely sequenced ‘events’ executed with no ability to create and manage a ‘process’ that ended up as a ‘system’ to manage key categories. All we created were more damn task lists. My category leaders didn’t need more “to-do’s”, they needed laboratories for research and testing, board rooms for decision-making, and a ship’s bridge from which to monitor and control.
  • Drowning in useless data:
    We made great use of data at first, but wrestling with it was so manual and there was no way to easily refresh it. It very quickly became like a can of soda: when first opened, it’s great, but the longer it sits, the flatter — and less useful in providing relief — it gets.

So what’s changed? I’ve used ‘High Definition’ Sourcing with category specific ‘Business Centers’ for complex categories. With this sophisticated approach:

  • Category managers have a panoramic view that allows them to manage their categories, end-to-end with regards to
    1. defining new opportunities/problems
    2. gathering a full spectrum of metrics to use in evaluating potential solutions,
    3. establishing, monitoring, and tracking of key decisions to highlight deviations from expectations

    These three (3) parameters form our ‘system’ for managing complex categories, where the stakes are high and the opportunities for value, even higher.

  • With a category management Center of Excellence we have two critical resources for successful management of high-definition sourcing:
    1. A Data Management Guru (DMG) responsible for the data capture and informatics. The DMG establishes connections to gather baselines; refreshes usage and capacity details; links to spend sources for up-to-date consumption figures and arranges performance data aggregation and design.
    2. A Business Intelligence Management Professional (BIMP) responsible for configuring the new analytics necessary to analyze key categories within an initiative. Every problem is a little different, and the right analytics are crucial to making the right decision.

As a result, my sourcing tools can

  • Flexibly define the problem opportunity for a specific category
  • Utilize robust data sources to feed the evaluation and performance processes
  • Allow creative scenarios to complete the evaluation process
  • Support the determination of specific decisions and actions
  • Establish KPIs for tracking ongoing performance
  • Effectively report the impact of our initiatives in terms (EPS/Profit Contribution) the entire organization understands

All in the context of a given category.

And the return on investment for the staff augmentation and additional tools? An additional 5-8% savings in my most strategic categories, an overall improvement in my supplier performance post-contract, and an overall reduction in organizational risk by involving all of my stakeholders, their key data inputs, and constraints.

My only regret: I didn’t do it sooner.

Thanks, Paul!