The Tariff Tax Is Coming – And There Ain’t Much You Can Do About It!

Since you have been ignoring the home-shoring/near-shoring that a few of us experts tried to warn you about almost a decade before the first of the predictable tragedies happened (with articles appearing in the late 2000s on the dangers of outsourcing and the advantages of near-shoring — here are 3 SI articles from 2009, 2011, and 2013), you will now have to pay the tariff tax.

(Note that we are now on the fourth predictable tragedy. The first was the COVID pandemic, which the WHO and WEF were warning us about for a good decade [even though they didn’t know what the pandemic would be, they knew a pandemic was inevitable]. The second was geo-political conflicts and sanctions that cut off entire markets. The third was the double whammy of Panamanian droughts and Houthis in the Red Sea, cutting off the fast shipping lanes and forcing a return to routes around the Capes. Now we have tariffs, a predictable result of home-first economic policies that always return in times of tense geo-political climates … and especially in countries run by leaders who believe they have autocratic power, even if they aren’t supposed to.)

So now you will get hit by tariffs. No ands, ifs, or buts about it. And there is nothing you can do to prevent it. Why?

  1. Tariffs are going to be applied across the board. Thus, changing locations isn’t going to prevent them, just minimize them.
  2. In most countries, tariffs on products don’t change weekly. But sales can based on the perceived economic situation, so stocking up on inventory can increase inventory costs beyond expectations as well as logistics costs if you have to expedite shipping.
  3. Locations with cheaper tariffs without supporting supply chain networks will actually cost more, especially if the average competency of the workforce is lower than other locations.
  4. Proclamations are not actualizations. Actual tariffs could be more or less. You could switch from a location expected to see tariff increases to one that sees even more tariff increases.

If you want to protect from tariffs, which are likely only going to get worse as time goes on, there is only one option — re-shore as close as you can! You want to be as close to home as you can to not only protect against tariffs, but to minimize other costs and risks. Logistics risks, and costs, are less. Re-supply times are less. Risk response is faster. And new development and innovation is easier.

So even though costs will increase in the short-term — as you build/upgrade/refine factories and production lines, retrain workforces, build new supply lines, design new distribution chains, and so on. Especially when you re-shore to a location with higher energy or workforce costs. However, over time, the workforce will become more skilled and productive, automation will improve, and supply and distribution lines will optimize. Costs will go down, and they will be more stable than costs half a world away you have no control over.

The key is figuring out what you should re-shore and what you shouldn’t. You should only re-shore what you can do cost-competitively unless you are certain you would lose access to supply otherwise. While the end goal should be that you only outsource for what you can’t get near, or at, home, the reality is that you have to stay in business, and that means staying competitive. So, at least in the short-term, you have to pick-and-choose. So how do you do that?

What-if cost modelling, optimization, and predictive analytics. You need to accurately model the costs associated with pulling acquisition and production back over time. First production batch, 6 months, 1 year, 2 years, etc. Plot the costs over time and if the trend indicates the costs will match the outsourcing/offshoring costs within a few years, you go for it. These costs will require predicting all the component costs with predictive trend analytics, building detailed cost models, and optimizing them against all the different options. A lot of modelling, calculation, and what-if. But if you have the right advanced sourcing platform it can be done. (Although you will need to reach out to platform and modelling experts to figure out how.)

In the interim, for those of you panicking in the USA, just remember that some of the proposed tariffs is just posturing to force American allies to give into other US demands (more defence/border spending, less tariffs for US products). Others are promises to take revenge on countries that didn’t play nice or line certain pockets the last time the administration was in charge, unless those countries do exactly what is asked this time around. Thus, you don’t know exactly what will happen, all you know is that, since not everyone will meet the demands, more tariffs are coming. (And even if the worst don’t come now, who knows what the administration in four years will bring. Tariffs are coming!) That means you can’t select alternative locations ahead of time, or predict when to pre-buy. Moreover, you can only hold so much inventory, and can only get so much here so fast, so pre-buying wouldn’t help much anyway, if it helped at all.

The only sure fire way to minimize tariffs over time is to start re-shoring what you can relatively cost-effectively, as that will protect you no matter what, and even though it will take time, it will payoff in the long run. (And again, to be blunt, you should have started this fifteen years ago when Sourcing Innovation first started echoing the warnings of the inevitable disruptions that were going to come from too much off-shoring if a significant event happened, and now that we have had multiple — COVID, “special military operations” and sanctions, logistics challenges in Panama and the Red Sea, and now anti-trade policies in many countries — it’s time to act before even more disruptive events happen).

We Want to Be a Smart Company — Is That It? Part II

We’ve read the dumb company: avoiding the fork in the road articles, dead company walking: avoiding the graveyard articles, the two installments of “we want to be a smart company”, and we truly want to be a smart company, and we are taking the mistakes, and advice, to heart. Is there anything else we can do?

As per Part I, there’s always more you can do! However, there’s not much left to talk about that’s true across the board for all software companies. That being said, we are giving you ten final pieces of advice that just may help if money is tight, leads are few, and sales are hard. Yesterday, we gave you the first five. Today, give you the final five.

06. Stagger the Billing on Suites and Seats

If it will take 9 months for the multi-module suite, don’t charge the annual license fee for the whole suite until all of the modules are fully implemented and in use. Stagger the fee based on the functional modules the user will have each month. The same goes if you are selling on seats. If there is an additional fee per seat, or the pricing is based on blocks, don’t charge for all the users up front who will eventually use it when most won’t until month 7.

Remember that your solution is going to cost the company mid to high six or seven figures once all of the direct and indirect costs are factored in, a cost that won’t be returned right away, especially if you are selling a (mini)suite. This means that even though your price tag might be worth it, it’s a hard price tag to swallow for a customer who won’t get the full use out of it for almost a year, and, thus, a hard sell.

However, if they only pay for functionality as they get it, and will start to see value before the next fee hike, that bitter pill is a lot easier to swallow, and while it might mean less money up front for you, a happy customer always means more money on the back end, especially at renewal time — which will always happen as long as they remain happy.

07. Ditch the Office & WeWork … Get Creative

If you have an expensive office, can you ditch it? Covid proved that you don’t need to work 9-5 in the same space everyday to be productive. As long as people have a space they can come together to meet when they need to, or want to, that’s more than enough.

Also, if you have a dedicated WeWork-like space, that’s not getting used daily, do you need it? If you only have it so your employees can meet one day a week, and that’s all they use it, why do you need a high cost space? (And while these spaces are cheaper than dedicated offices, they are still pricey, especially if they are not used daily.)

Local hotels with empty meeting rooms during the week will give you a good deal if you buy food. If you’re bringing people in quarterly for a meeting, they’ll give you the meeting room for free if you fill a room block, and give you a good price on that block if you have breakfast and lunch at the hotel.

And if you’re small, get more creative. Some restaurants and pubs have private function rooms that sit empty most of the day, or all day if there are no private after work functions on a weekday. They are super cheap, especially if you eat there. Some will give you a contract for, say, every Thursday for a quarter or year! the doctor knows a company in London that has no dedicated space except for a room in a pub connected to a tube station that they use weekly. Costs them next to nothing (as they’d buy their employees food anyway when they are asked to come into London) and the location ensures that if the employees stay for a few drinks, they can safely tube home. (Now, this won’t work for every company if they are in “dry counties” or have a lot of employees that don’t drink, but you get the point that creativity can save a lot of money.)

08. Compete on Service

This is not said enough. Customers don’t want software. No one every wants software. Absolutely positively f6ck1ng no one wants software! They want solutions, and, more specifically, solutions that help them do their jobs more efficiently and effectively and come with the support they need to learn the solutions and learn them to the best of their ability.

And before you say “but everybody in business buys software”, let the doctor stop you right there. They buy it because they need it. They don’t buy it because they want it. Have you ever heard your buddy Joe say “hey, I can’t wait for the new version of AccAtack25 so I can get started on my taxes for next year“. Or hear Jesse say “I really need a new glitzy word processor to accompany the 6 others I don’t use for the screenplay that I’m thinking about but not actually writing“. Or Carl say “I want the new version of Excel so I can write even more convoluted, and pointless, macros for my financial analysis to appease my boss“. You haven’t. Because no one wants business software. They want tools to do their jobs, which is why you can’t sell software like consumer entertainment apps (video games). Business software is not fun, and, thus, no one wants it.

So once you’ve made the solution as usable as it is, compete on service. That will make a huge difference.

09. Think Sponsorships — Esp. Educational Ones

As per our last instalment, customers need education and want vendors who educate them. Those vendors always win in the end. If you don’t have the time, experience, or in-depth knowledge to do so, sponsor independent authorities (blogs that aren’t going anywhere*, educationally oriented consultancies, independent analysts and/or small firms) and associations that do and they will focus on educating your audience on what your audience needs to know to understand what your solution does and why your audience needs your solution when they talk to you.

Don’t underestimate the value that a potential customer places on education. The only thing that can come close to equalling that value is the right service level, which will be dependent on, and deliver, education.

10. Get Help Where You’re Lacking

We can’t say this enough. Stop pretending you can do it all, that you can figure it out once the mistake is pointed out to you, or that you can find a new full time resource (when you look at the cost of the part time consultant) that can wear six different hats and accomplish the same goals in a short amount of time. You can’t. Focus on the niche consultancies and the true experts and you will find that consultants are cheap relative to the value they bring.

11. Bonus: Fire the MBAs!

If the only degree they have is an MBA, show them the door as fast as possible. MBAs are Masters of Business Annihilation and have done more damage to modern corporations than even the most visionary of us could have predicted (with some of the utter ineptitude covered in Jason Premo’s LinkedIn article). Real companies, like real structures, have always been built by real engineers, not spreadsheet pushing financial analysts who don’t have a clue what the company actually does.

The point of an MBA should be to teach engineers the basics of good business and financial management, and how to operate in different regulatory and reporting contexts, so they can make the right trade-off decisions to grow their company and improve their offering in step-wise fashion, not to arm nitwits with spreadsheets to make ridiculously unsound decisions that could ruin the corporation in the pursuit of near-term profits!

* Specifically, look for blogs that have survived at least 3 years. In the mid 2000s, shortly after THE PROPHET, the doctor, and THE REVELATOR started, we went from less than two dozen in the mid 2000s to almost 160 across Source to Pay and Supply Chain around 2008/2009. By 2011, dozens disappeared. By 2016, dozens more. By/during COVID, the majority of those that remained left us. Of the 160 blogs SI once chronicled on the now defunct resource site, less than two dozen remain. You can count them on your fingers and toes even if you are missing a few digits.

Two Decades of Tough Times for the Oompa Loompas

Long time readers will know that Sourcing Innovation has been covering the plight of the Oompa Loompas ever since some of them gave up chocolate for code (at Coupa). And it hasn’t been good. Fifteen years ago there was E. Coli at the Nestle Plant (link). Five years ago, there was potential Hepatitis A contamination with Kentucky QVC Chocolate (link). Today, Lindt is facing a lawsuit over lead levels. (Source)

Hopefully some day they can go back to Chocolateering in peace.

Why are Big X training so many “consultants” on AI?

Especially Gen-AI? For the longest time, the doctor couldn’t understand why so many Big X consultancies were training so many “consultants” on AI, especially Gen-AI. Most of their junior “consultants” can’t even use advanced functionality in today’s analytics applications (as you need advanced degrees in mathematics, computer science, data science, and/or Operations Research to do so) or deliver significant value on traditional analytics and advisory projects relative to the price they charge (unless they are being led by a more senior person with the analytics knowledge and real-world experience). (Read our previous articles and comments on where this talent ends up [which is typically not a Big X] and where these Big X firms offer unparalleled value [and where you should be using Big X].)

But it was recently all made clear to me. These consultants, who struggle with basic projects (as reflected in the high tech failure rates they are regularly a part of as the typical first choice for a third party implementation team when the vendor does not provide them adequate training and support on the platform they are implementing), are barely up to doing the work (as they are usually straight out of school with no real world experience or deep knowledge of anything not taught in a textbook MBA program), and definitely not up to doing strategic engagements out of the gate!

However, with companies wanting to rapidly digitize across the board (which they need to, but, not all digitization requirements should have equal priority), they need strategic advice and direction, and these firms just don’t have enough senior consultants to handle all the engagements and, most importantly, do the work required to put those book-sized briefs and presentations together.

But the one thing Gen-AI can do is take in millions of pages of strategic plans and presentations, take in instructions of what is desired, then generate pages of text from bits and pieces of these historical plans and presentations for each instruction, amalgamate them all together, and produce a detailed report and presentation that they can present to the client. And do this in a few hours under the guidance of a junior analyst with a (Gen-) AI playbook! Then all the senior person has to do is a quick tweak and review!

We’re not joking! The crazy thing is, with so much free material on the internet, with a little bit of elbow grease, and some very creative prompt engineering, you can do this yourself. And someone on LinkedIn already showed you how — giving you this information for FREE in this LinkedIn article. (And should that article disappear, here’s a link to the author’s article on his site.)

So now you know. It’s not about getting you better results (which may or may not happen, every project is different), it’s to give them the ability to take on more projects that they wouldn’t otherwise have the manpower to do.

And if you really want good results, note that you can always hire a real strategic senior consultant from a specialist niche consultancy who often won’t be on multiple projects at the same time, and who can give the insights you need without wasting trees printing out book sized presentations for you. After al, relative to the value the right consultant will bring, Consultants are Cheap and, in our space, the key to Affordable RFPs!

It’s Not AI (First,Led,Powered,etc.) or Autonomous. It is Solution with Augmented Intelligence!

By now you know our stance on Gen-AI (and how it should be relegated to the rubbish heap from which it came) because it’s not about “AI”, it’s about outcome. And outcome requires a real, predictable, usable solution that helps Human Intelligence (HI!) make the right decision. Such a solution is one that uses tried and true algorithms that support tried and true processes that provide a human with the insight needed to make the right decision at the time, every time a decision needs to be made.

This requires a solution that walks the human user through the process, step by step, and presents them with the information required to make a decision as to whether to progress to another step, what the next step is, and any conditions that need to be put on that next step. This requires a solution that automatically runs all of the typically relevant analysis, on all of the available data, and presents the insight, along with any typical decisions (as [a] default recommendation[s]) made on any similar situations that can be found in the organizational history.

Automation should only occur in situations the organization has defined as acceptable according to well defined, human reviewed, and verified rules. Not default vendor rules or unverified probabilities or unverified random computations from a random algorithm. A good solution is one that walks a user through the process, often allowing each step to be completed with a single choice or click. It’s not one that makes the choice for the user, which may or may not be the right one, but one that helps the user makes the right choice. It might seem like a subtle difference, but it is a very important one.

Even though an AI-powered autonomous solution might seem to make the right decision over 90% (or 95%) of the time, it doesn’t mean it actually is. If it looks right, it might be a good decision, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good decision for the organization at the time, or the best decision that can be made. Only human review, at the time, can make that decision. A good solution runs all the analysis it can, summarizes the results, and lets a human verify the data for any recommendation made by the system.

To better understand the the subtlety, consider a situation where the organization lets the system automatically re-auction all regularly purchased products and commodities for manufacturing or MRO where the price is typically constant over time using a lowest bidder takes all e-Auction that results in the auto-generation and auto e-Signature of a one year contract. Now, most of the time this is probably going to work okay, but imagine you let it run on full auto-pilot and in the e-Auction queue is your regular RAM contract that expired three days after a major RAM plant factory fire (that happens about once every decade if you trace back through the last forty years), and prices have just skyrocketed about 50%. Prices which would drop back down as soon as the plant comes back online in three months. Locking in a full year contract would result in excessive cost overruns on the items for almost nine months longer than necessary, instead of just three months or so. A human would know to buy the bare minimum on the spot market at overly inflated rates and wait until the market stabilized before running an e-Auction to lock in the next contract. But a system told to just re-auction and re-order at every contract expiration would do this that. It wouldn’t know that the current market rates are just temporary, why, and how to change course. This is just one example where over-automation and AI will lead to failure without Human Intervention.

A good system presents the user with the products/commodities that are typically automatically auctioned, the history of costs, the current market costs, the recommendation for auto-sourcing and term, the expected results, and whether the recommendation is for the auction to auto-award and contract or, when the auction is complete, pause and include a human in the loop to make a final decision. A well designed system minimizes the work and input required by a human, eliminating all the tactical data analysis and e-paperwork, making it easy to make the right strategic decision without a lot of effort. Technology isn’t about trying to replace human intelligence (which it can’t), but about eliminating unnecessary drudgery or computation (“thunking”) that humans are not good at (or don’t have the time for), so that humans can focus on strategic decisions and value add.

That’s why the right answer is always a solution with augmented intelligence. Not autonomous AI solutions.