Can We Harness the Wisdom of Crowds in Supply Chain Forecasting?

How Do We Harness the Wisdom of Crowds in Supply Chain Forecasting? A little over two years ago, I posed this question to you. I got a few responses, mostly private, who were thankful that I pointed out that you cannot just blindly follow the wisdom of just any old crowd, because expert judgements often demonstrate logically inconsistent results, but not a lot of advice on how we could successfully approach the task of integrating the wisdom that crowds could provide in our supply chain processes. The reason that we wanted to tackle this problem is because it is true that teams of forecasters often generate better results (and decisions) than individuals as long as the teams include a sufficient degree of diversity of information and perspectives.

But this is the caveat. The wisdom of crowds only holds if the crowd is large enough to contain the necessary diversity of information and perspectives in a statistically significant way. In other words, you will need a lot of people, and these people will need to be from diverse backgrounds and possess diverse skill-sets. But even this might not be enough in some situations.

As pointed out in this great blog post over on the World Future Society blogs by Thomas Frey from last August on The False Wisdom of Crowds, the decision between flying on a plane piloted by a single AI or the combined intelligence of 3,000 people is not as simple as you think. While it is true that the combined IQ and skill-set of 3,000 people is much greater than any AI on the planet, as you Next Generation Trekkies aware of the quick adaptability of the Borg will be quick to point out, it is also true that if all 3,000 of these people are farmers from the MidWest, it is likely the case that not one of them will know how to fly a plane! In contrast, the AI might be the best autopilot software in the industry, successfully used problem-free on tens of thousands of flights. The only way you’d beat that is if you had a collective of 3,000 of the best airline pilots in the industry. But the statistical likelihood of selecting that crowd from the global population is astronomical.

As Drew Curtis, founder of Fark.com, points out, “Crowds are dumb. The reality is that, while people are very good at knowing what they personally want, they are generally very bad at understanding the truths of the world around [them]. If you want proof, consider the examples given by Thomas and Drew, which include:

  • In the ’50’s, it was common knowledge that if a nuclear bomb went off in your city, you’d be safe if you simply learned to “duck and cover”.
  • Until 2007, it was a well-known fact that real-estate was a great investment where you would virtually never lose money.
  • Only once percent of Web comments have any value and the rest are just garbage.

In other words, diversity is not enough. You need expertise. And you need the right expertise. But as pointed out in SI’s post from 2010 and Thomas’ blog post, ‘social influence’ diminishes the range of opinions and tends to lead crowds in the direction chosen by the most respected and/or socially powerful individuals. So you have to gather data from a “blind crowd” that cannot see each other.

In other words, when you put it all together you need:

  • diversity, as addressed in our previous post,
  • privacy, as partially addressed in our previous post,
  • expertise, as demonstrated by Thomas’ blog, and
  • statistical significance, as not adequately addressed yet.

Taken together, these requirements pose a bit of a problem, which is made clear in Thomas’ post where he quotes a recent study by McKinsey and Company that calculated an immediate shortage in the US of almost 200,000 people with analytical expertise and 1.5 million managers and decision makers with the skills to understand and make decisions based on the analyses provided by the analytical experts. Overall, we’re starving for expertise in Supply Chain, as evidenced by the fact that less than 10% of companies truly employ advanced sourcing techniques! The average company just doesn’t have enough people to meet the diversity, expertise, and statistical significance required to guarantee that a crowd decision will be better than the decision of their “leading expert” in that area. And since most firms don’t want to share expertise, sourcing processes, or suppliers, especially where strategic or high-value categories are concerned, they’ve essentially cut-off external sources of expertise. The result: beyond non-strategic / low-value categories they would be willing to hand off to a GPO, their chances of truly harvesting the wisdom of crowds for many Supply Management processes are low, at best — and this leads us to wonder if we really can harness the wisdom of crowds in supply chain forecasting in practice.

New Thoughts? Comments? Criticisms?

Procurement Key Issue 2013: CXO’s Still Don’t Get the Disconnect!

This week, the Hackett Group released their “2013 Procurement Key Issues” study. This study, which was likely the last hurrah from Pierre Mitchell as a Hackett Group Employee, found that some organizations are going deeper and broader to deliver borderless procurement services, which is good, but the one thing that blatantly stands out is that your average CFO, COO, and CEO still doesn’t understand the value of the Procurement Organization.

Before I explain, let me review a few of the key findings.

1. 82% of respondents state that increasing operational agility and flexibility is a key enterprise issue.

2. 65% of respondents state that pursuing game-changing innovation/technology is a procurement initiative planned for the next 12-24 months in support of enterprise strategy.

3. 76% of respondents state that expanding purchasing’s scope and influence is a major procurement-related issue in 2013.

4. 76% of respondents state that increasing innovation and product/service report is a major procurement-related issue in 2013.

5. 88% of respondents cite strategic sourcing as a major issue.

6. 81% of respondents cite category management as a major issue.

BUT

7. As a whole, respondents are projecting:

  • a 0.4% drop in the operating budget and
  • a 0.5% drop in the FTEs in the procurement function.

 

I think this calls for a WTF!

Strategy and category management require skilled resources with the right intelligence and toolsets. This requires adequate budget.

Innovation and agility require advanced skills, expertise, and market knowledge that requires a lot of supply market intelligence, outside information, and time to study mini- and mega-trends. This also requires adequate budget.

Scope of influence comes with results, and results require talented people with appropriate toolsets and knowledge. Again, this requires adequate budget.

Furthermore, we have the situation where budgets are not being cut equally. From what I’m gathering, for the fifth year in a row, Procurement Training budgets are being slashed or are non-existent! This is driving me nutz! This disconnect of separating expectations from budget is ridiculous, especially when the organization is supposed to be scored on value. Value is ROI. ROI is return on investment. In Procurement, this is defined as savings/avoidance/revenue increase over spend. This means that if spending $10K on training will give your category managers the capability they need to go negotiate another $100,000 of the TCO (Total Cost of Ownership) through unit price, logistics, and non-value added service savings, then you increase the budget by 10K because you are getting a 10X return!

If the goal is for the Procurement organization to deliver value, then they need the budget for the technology, supply market intelligence, and training they need to deliver that value. Otherwise, expecting them to do more with less (FTEs) is just stupid. Ludicrous in fact!

Why A True Supply Management Professional will Never be Replaced by Technology

As succinctly stated in this recent HBR headline, Algorithms Don’t Feel, People Do.

Also, algorithms don’t sense, read non-verbal cues, detect patterns in seemingly unrelated data, take risks, or form common bonds. They don’t feel, and they aren’t intelligent. And while their predictive capabilities are scary given enough data, they are not infallible, and when they do fail, they will fail in a big way. Let’s address these points one by one.

First of all, as noted by the author of the HBR article, algorithms don’t feel, and can’t predict how a person will respond to a message. Marshall McLuhan may have stated that the medium is the message, implying that the form of a medium embeds itself in the message and influences how a person will receive the message, but the reality is that, in today’s individualistic society, the message is what is interpreted by the recipient, and only someone with a shared understanding will be able to comprehend what that is and react accordingly. As a result, an algorithm can not negotiate.

Successful negotiation depends on a first party transmitting a message, agreeable to that first party, that the second party can accept, and, moreover, figuring out, of all of the possible messages that the second party might accept, which subset represent message that the second party are most likely to accept and which messages of the subset are the least distant from the desired message. An algorithm can compute which options are likely given certain assumptions, and which of these options are the least distance according to some metric, but cannot determine what assumptions to make. Only a person who can feel, and feel what the other party is feeling, can be the judge of what good assumptions are. And, secondly, algorithms cannot sense. They don’t feel, and they don’t have instinct — which requires real intelligence.

Thirdly, they can’t read non-verbal cues. Even if someone is stating that they may be agreeable to an offer, the reality is that they may have no intention of ever accepting the offer, and are only indicating the contrary to stall for more time. It’s often the case that such a person is not as good at masking their demeanor as they are at masking their words. It might be the case that their non-verbal cues give more away than they would like. Only a trained negotiator with years of experience and instinct can be the judge of this.

But even more importantly, they can’t detect patterns in unrelated data, as it’s typically the case they can only process specified data in specified ways. And a fixed data pool never tells the whole story. A fixed algorithm might not know that a fire today will impact resource availability in six months, that your main competitor is likely to go out of business do a massive loss in a patent infringement lawsuit, or that a new technology is going to make the current technology obsolete in 18 months, with prices and demand starting to plummet in six months. As a result, in each of these instances, the algorithm would buy (today) (at a much) higher (price) than it needs to.

Furthermore, algorithms don’t understand when to “trust your gut” and take a calculated risk such as betting the farm on a new technology or riding the spot-buy market when all signs point to locking in a price for three years. The reality is that real success often requires risk, and only a true pro will know when such a risk should be taken.

Finally, as algorithms are not intelligent, they don’t form common bonds with like-minded algorithms that would help them advance their company and their profession. Algorithms have their place, and properly used can take a great deal of tactical and low-value workload off of a Supply Management professional’s plate, but algorithms will never be smart enough to handle the strategic and high-value workloads without intelligent — human — supervision. Optimal is only optimal if all of the assumptions are valid and modelled. An expert will always be needed to define the assumptions, check the assumptions, verify the results, and tweak them according to an ever-changing Supply Management world.

In short, good technology can make you two, ten, and maybe even one hundred times more productive (depending on the metric), but it cannot replace you. So don’t be scared of new technology for your supply chain — embrace it. Given the ever-increasing demands being placed upon you, you will be glad that you did!

If You Really Want to Future-Proof Your Career

Join the world’s second oldest profession!

A recent guest post over on VentureBeat on your career, future-proofed notes that industries that once were dominant are long in decline and that nascent sectors are ascendant and will likely shape everything that lies ahead. This includes the careers that will be available to you. Given that you don’t want to be among the 23% of workers who are unemployed to some degree, according to the latest shadow statistics that includes long-term discouraged workers not included in the BLS U-6 unemployment rate that includes short-term discouraged and marginally-attached workers (which is close to 15%), it’s important to do what you can to “future-proof” your career. (Source: ShadowStats)

To this end, the author of the guest post gives you four simple rules that he believes will help you win your future. They are:

Take Risks – Big Ones

If you see your industry on the fast-track to the doghouse, try something new, even if it means working half a world away for a while.

Take All Opportunities

Never shy away from any event, trip, assignment, or project they want to give you that will expand your experience, horizon, and opportunity.

Go Where the Future Is

Even though we had the dot-com crash, the future still lies in tech and healthcare, but tech will be more than just over-hyped software companies. And it will be most prevalent in healthcare as the population continues to age and wants to live longer and better.

Think Beyond

Whatever we’re using today we won’t be using in 10 years, or at least not in the same form. Don’t get comfortable. Look to what is coming next and prepare for it.


These are great pieces of advice, but if you really want to future proof your career, all you have to do is take up the world’s second oldest profession – Procurement! Whether you call it purchasing, sourcing, or supply management, it’s based on buying, and there has been buying at least since the ancient Anatolians were trading obsidian circa the 9th century BC. We’re a consumer culture that constantly needs to trade (money, or equivalent) for what we need, so buying is never going to go away. Paper money might, as we replace it with digital bits, but the concept won’t.

Plus, being in Procurement implies that you will have the opportunity to take risks (and will have to if you want to stand out and advance your career quickly), expand your experience (as you will have lots of opportunities to travel to suppliers around the globe and work with them), go where the future is (as there is always a big focus on emerging markets), and think beyond — as the only real way to create lasting value is to continually innovate beyond the norm.