Author Archives: thedoctor

Sustainability ONLY Exists In the Supply Chain

Furthermore, simply switching suppliers does not make you more sustainable no matter what you may think or what those overpriced third party ESG / Scope 3 reports may (or may not) say. Switching suppliers to a supplier approximated to be more sustainable is not increasing sustainability, because if you take someone else’s supplier, then they are just going to end up with yours. It may be a temporary net win for your company, but it’s a net loss for another company, and that doesn’t really help anyone as sustainability was not actually increased overall.

Sustainability only comes from net improvement. The reason it only comes from the supply chain is because the products you buy come from the supply chain. The energy you use comes from the supply chain. The water you use (and drink) comes from the supply chain. The services come from your partners (in the supply chain). The transport to you (and/or to your customers) is the supply chain. Everything comes from the supply chain. The only way you can increase your sustainability is to reduce the energy, water, and products you use and the travel you undertake. For most companies, this is a negligible part of the supply chain … sometimes so negligible it rounds to zero.

So how do you increase sustainability in your supply chain? You start by helping your suppliers be more sustainable, which, believe it or not, starts with you being a better buyer and a better partner. Sustainability requires investment, and when they are operating at slimmer margins than you, significantly smaller bank accounts than you, and a lot more uncertainty than you, it can be hard for them to invest in new technology or processes when they don’t even know if they can invest in next week’s payroll.

And it requires more than a piece of paper from you saying you’re going to award them two years of business after a multi-round RFP when you’re a first time buyer. Because they know that while you may have the wherewithal to enforce a contract in another country half a world away, they often don’t. And they know how many times they’ve been screwed in the past when they were told they’d get 100,000 units, but COVID hit, the market crashed, or the transport lanes (ports, borders, etc.) closed down and the orders never came.

You need to develop a true partnership, work with them, build up shared trust and commitment, stick to your promises, help them with their processes so they become more efficient, identify efforts they can make to significantly increase sustainability, and then make the long term commitment they need from you (and other major customers) to invest in better technology, build their own renewable energy grids, etc.

Why are we bringing this up? Because a recent article in VOGUE Business that asked if “fashion’s buying practices are really improving” had a very good point. While fashion brands make strong claims they are investing in longer-term strategic partnerships, and big consultancies like McKinsey quote impressive statistics (such as an increase from 26% to 43% over the last 4 years) on how the percentage of CPOs reporting longer-term strategic partnerships (which just translates into longer term contracts, but not necessarily guaranteed awards over the long term, as there are usually so many out clauses the contracts mean nothing), the reality is that when you ask the suppliers how things are going, it’s a completely different story. As the Vogue Business article point out, this year’s Better Buying Partnership Index saw just a one point increase in the garment industry’s buyer-supplier partnerships score. Just one point! That could be a rounding error.

Despite all the lip service, there has been no improvement in the fashion supply chain because, at the end of the day, as Lindsay Wright was quoted, simply claiming you have good partnerships with your suppliers isn’t going to cut it. If you want an honest picture of what’s really happening on the ground, you need to be asking suppliers, because they’re the only real arbiters of whether purchasing practices are improving.

And this holds true across supply chains. Partner with your suppliers on long term contracts and work on development initiatives with them if you want to increase sustainability. Otherwise, the best thing you can do is to just shut the f*ck up because you’re only contributing to the hot air.

Supply Chain Certifications Lost Value Quite a While Ago …

… and they won’t ever reclaim any value until they start offering training on digitally friendly processes and the core of modern digital technology. That’s why it was no surprise to the doctor to see this recent article over on the Acceleration Economy that noted that Supply Chain Certifications Lose Value as Product Expertise Gains Traction.

He was surprised to hear that the research foundation found that a whopping 18% of certifications issued through career and tech education programs are sought by employers. As someone with a background in tech, he can honestly say that he’s never worked for, or with, any employer that actually valued a tech certification because they were outdated before they were issued — the leading tech employers valued good education and experience that provided a candidate with the ability to learn and adapt on the job. Which, by the way, is exactly what a Procurement professional has to do.

As the article notes, since the machine has taken over the task of doing the calculations — computing the inventory, creating demand plans, and analyzing lead times — we don’t need in depth courses on how to do this manually, we need certifications in whatever technologies our companies have chosen to use so we can take the utmost advantage of that technology, or at least a certification that covers the basics across all technologies of that type.

But even though it’s now the mid-2020s, we still don’t have any certifications that even cover the basics of the tech that hit the scene across Source-to-Pay in the mid 2000s. After all, the basics they convey haven’t change either. So, as some have noted, while they are a decent starting point for someone just getting into Procurement, it won’t get them very far. And they certainly don’t add any value to anyone with more than 3 years of experience.

Hopefully this will change, because it would be nice if Procurement professionals had a certification option that would allow them the opportunity for a lifetime of learning, vs. checking the box for a certification where they know more than the teacher.

Will AI Make Us Irrelevant?

Short Answer: No. But Improper Use Will Make Us “Redundant.

James Meads asks “Will AI in Procurement make us all irrelevant?”

So I will answer. No, it won’t! But it will make those companies who dive off the deep-end on Gen-AI irrelevant as their supply chains crumble with no real human intelligence there to save them when the next crisis hits. (See the myriad of rants here on Sourcing Innovation on just how over-hyped Open Gen-AI technology is and what you actually need to solve your problems.) Also, if we’re lucky, they will take a few providers with no actual platform capability (or Procurement value) down with them. (We need them to get out of the way for those platforms that have been offering real, deterministic, math-based, tried-and-true analytics, optimization, and machine learning solutions [for up to two decades] as there are many companies that need those solutions today.)

While custom-trained closed LLMs can seemingly do a lot of the work for us, they are NOT intelligent, they don’t know good from bad, they don’t know right from wrong, and they definitely don’t know critical from irrelevant. Thus, even though they can put together an NDA or RFP in seconds, it doesn’t mean it’s “fully functional”, that it protects you from all the risks, or that it captures all your requirements. Only an expert human can verify that. [And it doesn’t matter how good your “prompting” is. It can still fail, with a reasonably high probability to boot! (Which is what you can give it!) There’s a reason that Tonkean, an intake automation/enterprise orchestration solution provider, ALWAYS does pre-validation on inputs and-post validation on outputs before showing you anything when it incorporates your LLM technology, because they know just how often it fails and if the response doesn’t closely resemble something expected with very high probability, they won’t even show it to you.]

“AI”, or, more accurately, rules-based automation, will replace humans who are just doing tactical data processing, but it cannot replace humans who can do real strategic analysis, interpretation, and problem solving. Unfortunately for Procurement, given that 80%+ of the time is tactical data processing and fire-fighting, this will cause companies to think they can eliminate 80% of the Procurement team, even though the reality is that the Procurement team isn’t even addressing 20% of spend strategically in any given year, meaning that they should be augmenting the Procurement team with every useful technology they can find to try and get that spend coverage above 80%!

And if you want to know what companies are truly offering valuable “AI” (where the best you will get is Augmented Intelligence, level 2 on the 4 tier scale, as there is no such thing as Artificial Intelligence and many companies still don’t even offer Assisted Intelligence, level 1, and instead disguise their Artificial Idiocy in slick marketing), talk to an analyst who CAN do the math AND the programming.

First published on LinkedIn.

Even Forbes is Falling for the the Gen-AI Garbage!

This recent article in Forbes on the Supply Chain Shift to Intelligent Technology is what inspired last week’s and this week’s rant because, while supply chains should be shifting to intelligent technology, the situations in which that is Gen-AI are still extremely rare (to the point that a blue moon is much more common). But what really got the doctor‘s goat is the ridiculous claims as to what Gen-AI can do. Claims with are simultaneously maddening and saddening because, if they just left out Gen-AI, then everything they claimed is not only doable, but doable with fantastic results.

Of the first three claims, Gen-AI can only be used to solve one — and only partially.

Procurement and Regulatory Compliance
This is one example where a Closed Private Gen-AI LLM is half the battle — it can process, summarize, and highlight key areas of hundred page texts faster and better than prior NLP tech. But it can’t tell you if your current contracts, processes, efforts, or plans will meet the requirements. Not even close. In fact, no AI can — the best AI can just indicate the presence or absence of data, processes, or tech that are most likely to be relevant and then an intelligent human needs to make the decision, possibly only after obtaining appropriate expert Legal advice.
Manufacturing Efficiency
streamline production workflows? optimize processes? reduce errors? No, Hell No, and even the Joker wouldn’t make that joke! You want streamlining? You first have to do a deep process cycle time analysis, compare it to whatever benchmarks you can get, identify the inefficiencies, identify potential processes and tech for improvement, and implement them. Optimize processes? Detailed step by step analysis, identification of opportunities, expert process redesign, training, implementation, and monitoring. Reduce errors? No! People and tech do the processes, not Gen-AI — implement better monitoring, rules, and safeguards.
Virtual Supply Collaboration
A super-charged chatbot on steroids is NOT a virtual assistant. Now, properly sandwiched between classical AI and rules-based intelligence it can deal with 80% of routine inquiries, but not on its own, and it’s arguable if it’s even worth it when a well designed app can get the user to the info they need 10 times faster with just a couple of clicks. Supply chain communicating? People HATE getting a “robot” on a support line as much as you do, to the point some of us start screaming profanities at it if we don’t get a real operator within 10 seconds. Based on this, do you really think your supplier wants to talk to a dumb bot that has NO authority to make a decision (or, at least, should NEVER have the authority — though the doctor is sure someone’s going to be dumb enough to give the bot the authority … let’s just hope they can live with the inevitable consequences)?

And maybe if the article had stopped there the doctor would let it pass, but
first of all, it went on to state the following for “AI”, without clarifying that Gen-AI doesn’t fit in the process, leading us to conclude that, since the first part of the article is about Gen-AI, this part is too, and thus is totally wrong when it claims that:

“AI” understands dirty data
with about 70% accuracy where it counts IF you’re lucky; that’s about how accurate it is at identifying a supplier from your ERP/AP transaction records; an admin assistant will get about 98% accuracy by comparison
it can “confirm” inventories
all it can do is regurgitate what’s in the inventory system — that’s not confirmation!
it can identify duplicate materials
first it has to identify two records that are actually duplicates;
and how likely do you think this is with a supplier mapping accuracy of 70%?
it can identify materials to be shared among facilities
well, okay, it can identify materials that are used across facilities and could be located in a central location — but how useful is that? it’s not because, first of all, YOU ALREADY KNOW THIS, and, second, IT CAN’T DO SUPPLY CHAIN OPTIMIZATION — THAT’S WHAT A SUPPLY CHAIN OPTIMIZATION SOLUTION IS FOR! OPTIMIZATION!!! We’ll break it down syllabically for you so you know what to ask for. OP – TUH – MY – ZAY – SHUN!
it can recommend ideal storage locations
again, NO! This requires solving a very sophisticated optimization model it doesn’t have the data for, doesn’t know how to build, and definitely doesn’t know how to solve.
it can revamp outdated stocking policies
well, only the solution of a proper Inventory OPTIMIZATION Model that identifies the appropriate locations and safety stock levels can identify how these should be revamped
it can recommend order patterns by consumption and lead time
that’s classical curve fitting and tend projection

And, secondly, as the doctor just explained, most of what they were saying AI could do CAN’T be done with AI, and instead can only be done with analytics, optimization, and advanced mathematical models! (You know, the advanced tech (that works) that you’ve been ignoring for over two decades!)

The Gen-AI garbage is getting out of control. It’s time to stop putting up with it and start pushing back against any provider who’s trying to sell you this miracle cure silicon snake oil and show them the door. There are real solutions that work, and have worked, for two decades that will revolutionize your supply chain. You don’t need false promises and tech that isn’t ready for prime time.

Somedays the doctor just wishes he was the Scarecrow. Only someone without a brain can deal with this constant level of Gen-AI bullsh!t and not be stressed about the deluge of misinformation being spread on a daily basis! But then again, without a brain, he might be fooled by the slick salespeople that Gen-AI could give him one, instead of remembering the wise words of the True Scarecrow.

The Supply Chain is Full of Hidden Risks

A recent article in the Supply Chain Management Review by Avetta provided Insights for Procurement Leaders on tackling hidden risks in the supply chain. As per the article, supply chains are full of:

  • Geographic Vulnerabilities
  • Cybersecurity Threats
  • Ethical and Compliance Issues
  • Financial Instability
  • Environmental Recklessness

… and all of this poses a major risk to your supply chain. Avetta‘s baker’s dozen of recommendations are to:

  • conduct due diligence on all level of suppliers
  • identify alternate sources
  • monitor geographical developments
  • prioritize cybersecurity measures
  • conduct regular risk assessments
  • foster a culture of cyber awareness
  • establish clear codes of conduct
  • regularly audit supply chain partners
  • prioritize transparency and accountability
  • rigourous financial due diligence
  • monitor key financial indicators
  • prioritize sustainability initiatives
  • establish robust contingency plans

And these are all good, but most of the risk results from one thing:

  • lack of timely, accurate data on
    • the physical supply chain (people, plants, product, vehicles, etc.)
    • the financial supply chain (the financial state of suppliers, contractors, employees, etc.)
    • the information supply chain (completeness, accuracy, security, etc.)

This says that if you really want to tackle the hidden risks, you need to start with the following as you can’t tackle anything you can’t identify:

  • supply chain visibility — map every entity in your supply chain
  • external risk monitoring — whenever a geographical, political, environmental, or cyber disruption happens anywhere, and is reported, you need to detect that, identify all entities that may be affected, confirm which entities in your supply chain are affected, and take an appropriate mitigating action
  • cyber network monitoring — you need to monitor your entire network, every server, every client (desktop, laptop, tablet, AND cell phone), every router, every API end point, and every wire … your weakest link is your effective security
  • cross-system and account financial monitoring — money disappears when there are holes for it to fall into; holes exist when you have disconnected P-Card, e-Procurement, and AP systems, especially across divisions and you aren’t correlating balances between transfers, bank accounts, and investments on at least a daily basis
  • activity monitoring — all waste, loss, and fraud is the result of a bad actor, whether or not the bad acting was intentional (hint: if the loss is significant, it usually is intentional; incompetence often only results in minor loss); but you can’t monitor everyone, even if you wholly operate in a jurisdiction where doing so is legal; but, when everything is digitized, you can monitor every action, whether or not is in accordance with policy, flag everything that isn’t, and escalate any actions that are against policy that should be investigated

As you detect issues and disruptions, you can start with standard mitigation actions, and as you identify patterns of commonality, you can identify additional contingency plans, which you should already have for every product or service that is critical to your operation.

Note that Sourcing Innovation has published a list of 55+ Supply Chain Risk Vendors that already have solutions that do a lot of this monitoring. There’s no excuse for your organization not to have at least an 80% solution in place today.