Monthly Archives: September 2013

The next evolutionary phase of e-invoicing

Today’s guest post, which originally aired on Purchasing Insight, is courtesy of Pete Loughlin, Managing Editor at Purchasing Insight and a global expert on purchase-to-pay who could once be found on Twitter at @peteloughlin.

When it comes to electronic trading, the Latin Americans, most notably Brazil, Mexico, Argentina and Chile, put the so-called developed countries to shame in terms of their ambition. While the Europeans continue to support business processes hardly changed since they were developed by the spice merchants of Venice during the Renaissance, South American governments are building business and tax collection infrastructures that many of us would never have dreamt possible.

It’s absolutely true. Many of the business conventions that are employed in the west today are based on the methods of trade developed by Italian bankers in the 16th century. The way we trade including systems of banking and credit were all fine-tuned to meet the needs of merchants trading in the far east. And while many aspect have been modernized some of the core principles remain the same. Old habits die hard and today, despite our delusion that we are part of a digital economy, about 80% of the B2B invoices in Europe are pieces of paper.

For over 20 years, the lawmakers in Europe have grappled with the growth of e-business and it’s is only recently that the European Union has developed something which comes close to a common understanding of what an electronic invoice is. You could sympathize. It’s not possible to simple throw away centuries of convention and legislation. Starting from scratch and reinventing trading rules from 1st principles to take into account modern technology is no easy task – impossible perhaps. But that’s what the Brazilians and the Mexicans have managed to achieve. The have reinvented the business of invoicing and tax collection.

Today in Brazil, the tax authorities know about every business transaction before it happens. They know about every delivery of goods and services and the tax due. Law enforcement agencies including customs officers and police have the power and the tools to check on goods in transit to make sure that all the documentation is in order and that tax is being collected properly. Whereas in Europe and North America, electronic invoicing is about efficiency, in Latin America it’s about maximizing tax revenue.

All a bit heavy handed some might think. A level of government interference in business that is going a step too far maybe. But to those – especially those in Europe – who think that there’s no need to further police tax collection, let me say one thing. Greece.

Whereas the taxman in Latin America is proactively monitoring trade in real-time, ensuring it is calculated correctly and ensuring it’s paid, the taxman in the UK is looking retrospectively at the accounts of the likes of Google and Starbucks, scratching his head and asking “Why don’t you pay tax?”

All respect to Latin America. This is the way we’d do it if we were starting with a blank sheet of paper. But let’s take a look into the future and to some of the fastest growing economies in the world. Because that’s exactly what they have got – a clean sheet. They have virtually no physical infrastructure and even less business infrastructure. No embedded rules or conventions to hold them back. Could they build something even more sophisticated and ambitious? They can and they will.

When it comes to looking for the next evolutionary phase in e-invoicing, don’t look to the United States or Europe. Don’t even look to Brazil or Mexico. Look to Africa.

Thanks for letting SI reprint this awesome post, Pete!

Some Risks Can’t Be Squashed? Can Co-opetition Help?

Good visibility, planning, and mitigation can go a long way to eliminating, or at least circumventing, a large number of internal and external risks in an organization’s supply chain. It can improve quality, smooth transportation, and minimize production line downtime and stock-outs in situations where the risk – such as product contamination, risky transportation routes (due to piracy), and possible port closings (due to impending strikes) can be recognized in advance. However, even though we know some regions are high risks for natural disasters such as hurricanes, earthquakes, tsunamis, and volcanic eruptions, we are generally unable to predict such events with more than a few days warning at best. These risks will never go away – and in situations where only a few suppliers can supply a given raw material or component – and can’t be easily mitigated.

So what is an organization to do? Well, it should start by making sure it has a good Contingent Business Interruption (CBI) insurance policy in place that covers supply chain interruptions, but that doesn’t solve the problem. It can proceed by making sure it knows every backup source of supply, but if the disruption results in a worldwide market shortage, someone is going without and this doesn’t necessarily solve the problem either. It can do its best to identify alternative designs that can work with different, more easily obtained, raw materials – but if such alternate designs are considerably more expensive or less rugged, this doesn’t help either.

As per the title of this posts, some risks can’t be squashed. So how does an organization maximize its resiliency? Co-opetition, short for cooperative competition, might be the answer. Generally speaking, in most markets with constrained supply, there are only a few big companies that represent most of the demand. Think hard drives – how many hard drive manufacturers are there? Cell phones? Motion sensors for game consoles? And every company in the market knows who the other big companies are. And, at any given time, some of these companies will be overstocked and others will be understocked as the market demand sways from one product to another, in ways that are not always predictable.

What if these companies took a lesson from the BRIC, which just banded together to “create a $100 Billion buffer” (CNN Money, Sep 6, 2013) to help protect their economies from shocks when G20 leaders warned that the global recovery is still at risk from volatile capital flows. China is contributing 41 Billion to the fund, Brazil, Russia, and India will provide 18 Billion each, and the new BRICS member, South Africa, is coughing up 5 Billion. The fund — called the Contingent Reserve Arrangement — is being designed to provide member countries with an emergency cushion of cash during times of crisis.

Instead of creating monetary funds, the companies in the co-opetition could create virtual emergency raw material / component pools where member companies affected by a disruption could obtain a limited supply from their competitor or their competitor’s supplier agains the reserve locked up by their competitor. Each of the companies would share in the pain caused by the disruption. And although this means that some companies would, as a result, feel the result worse than they would otherwise as they would be giving up some supply to their competitors, they could take comfort knowing that the next time a disruption hit them severely, they will feel the blow a lot less than they would otherwise as all of the co-opetition members will be sharing the pain. Done properly, each company in the collective could insure that, no matter what, it would be able to keep operating at a baseline and the risk of a severe or catastrophic disruption would be minimized for all members.

Thoughts?

Does Royal Mail Have the Solution to the US Postal Service’s Woes?

In our last post on the US Post Office, we asked will Darrell Issa save the US Post Office. Given that the US Post Offices need to identify immediate savings of almost 20 Billion plus (as it keeps bleeding red with losses of 15.9 Billion in 2012 and 3.2 Billion in the first two quarters of 2013), something needs to be done fast.

In response to this need, as chronicled in our last post, we noted how Darrell Issa, a Representative of California and chairman of the US House Oversight and Government Reform, signed off on H.R. 2748, the Postal Reform Act of 2013, designed to bring the United States Postal Service (USPS) to financial solvency with cost-cutting reforms and innovative new sources of revenue. While the plan had a couple of good points, SI’s conclusion was that it was not going to be enough to generate the savings required.

Not that Royal Mail is in much better shape. As per an article in the Economist last summer, chronicled in this SI post that asked who’s in worse shape, Royal Mail racked up a £s;10 Billion deficit in unfunded pension liabilities. They may have saved over 300 Million in the first phase of their Procurement Transformation, and may expect to save over 600 Million in the second phase of their Procurement Transformation, but that’s a far cry from the 10 Billion they need to save.

However, as per this recent article over on CNN Money on how
“U.K.’s Royal Mail Goes Public” (Sep 12, 2013), the British Government is planning to sell a majority of its take in the Royal Mail through an IPO (initial public offering) that will be one of the U.K.’s largest in decades. The sale will certainly help, but given that the postal service IPO is likely to be valued around £s;3 Billion, that’s less than 1/3 of the shortfall and not a quick fix.

Still, it might indicate the only solution for the U.S. Postal Service that is now losing an estimated 25 Million daily. Specifically, the US should consider selling the US Post Office to a private equity group that can do what private equity groups do – turn struggling businesses with a lot of profit potential around into profit making machines. There are arguments both ways on this topic, some of which are summarized in this Research Roundup, but given that the USPS did 65 Billion in Revenue in 2012, the potential valuation could easily be in the 200 Billion range, and any group that could raise that kind of equity could definitely afford to make up the unfunded liabilities. It’s an interesting thought.

Where Do the Savings Lie?

Inflationary times are back, economic growth is slow, the job-situation hasn’t improved much, employers would rather keep a job vacant nine years waiting for the perfect candidate over spending even a single dollar on training, and CFOs are being told to put pressure on Procurement to cut costs to the bone. In other words, despite all the talk in recent years about training, innovation, and value-generation, it’s still business as usual at review time.

You’ve beat your suppliers senseless, kept overhead to a minimum (not by choice, you weren’t allowed to replace people lost to attrition), done some automation and strategic sourcing, and put as much effort as you could into high-cost categories. As far as you’re concerned, you’ve squeezed all the blood out of the stone and there’s nothing left. And if you are a sourcing leader, that might be true for the categories you’ve been focussing on for 6 to 9 years and that you’ve strategically sourced 3 times in a row.

But is this all the savings to be had? Not by a long shot.

The first thing to remember is that costs fall into two categories: recurring and one-time. Recurring costs include human resources (employees and mid to long term contractors); raw material, component, and production costs; overhead; COGS (cost of goods sold), transportation, and insurance. If your organization is a leader in Procurement and Supply Management and seen as a value generator, then, in addition to reducing raw-material, component, and production costs, it works with operations to keep overheads and insurance costs low, works with logistics to keep transportation costs low, works with Sales & Marketing to keep COGS low using its expertise, and even works with HR to get contractors at competitive rates. (In other words, it’s directly or indirectly reducing every cost except salary, which it has no control over.)

One-time costs include expedited shipping, temporary/contingent labour (to address seasonal spikes, such as the surge in demand many retailers get around Christmas time), switching costs (when switching suppliers or raw materials), and one-time costs associated with recalls, settlements, and stock-outs (on the shelves and in the factory). Most Supply Management departments work with logistics to optimize and keep transportation in check to minimize shipping costs, work with HR to make sure temporary/contingent labour is sourced appropriately, and take switching costs into account when evaluating sources of supply, and this is a good start, but these one-time costs pale in comparison to the cost of a recall, settlement, or stock-out. Recalling a contaminated or unsafe product that makes it to the shelves can easily cost in the tens of millions of dollars, a settlement that results from a class action lawsuit can cost in the hundreds of millions (especially when legal costs are factored in), and a supply chain disruption that results in the assembly line for the key, or only, product line being shut down for months can bankrupt a company (and a number of companies have gone bankrupt as a result of serious disruptions in production). How much is your Supply Management organization doing to prevent these very costly incidents, which can wipe out years of savings, from happening? Remember, Supply Management has, or should have, the supplier relationship and be doing its utmost to insure quality (preventing recalls or lawsuits), supply management has (or should have) the visibility to detect shortages or stock-outs well before they happen (and is the only organization in the position to take action and locate another source of supply in time), and only Supply Management has (or should have) the cross-functional capability to address these issues.

So, do you know where the savings lie?

Homeland Security Turns 224 Years Old Today!

Everyone thinks the Department of Homeland Security (established by the Homeland Security Act by Congress in November 2002), which opened its doors on March 1, 2003, was the beginning of the U.S. focus on homeland security, but nothing can be further from the truth. The U.S. focus on Homeland security started on this day in 1789 when the U.S. Department of Foreign Affairs changed its name to the Department of State. The inward focus has continued and progressed since that day while the rest of the world still deals with foreign affairs.