Author Archives: thedoctor

Prediction Time Again? Ugh. Part I

Why can’t a new year come without all of my fellow bloggers making hopeful, yet unrealistic, predictions about the upcoming year? And why can’t they stop inquiring about mine? Because, the reality is that 2014 is going to be 2013 part II, which was 2012 part II, which was in turn 2011 part II, which was in turn 2010 part II, and which was in turn 2009 part II. Supply Management, like many sectors, has yet to finish recovering since the financial crisis of 2007-2008 and there has been relatively little in the way of game-changing innovation to pull people back to the table, primarily because a lot of the best (and most innovative) solutions on the market that companies should be buying sound like the solutions they bought ten years ago — solutions which never delivered on their promises.

Back in the noughts, many Sourcing and Procurement technologies were naughts when it came to delivering on their promises, and left a bad taste in the mouth of many earlier adopters. Consider the following examples, in no particular order:

e-Auctions

Typically, e-Auctions worked great the first time when the consulting or solutions company was allowed to pick the category the solutions’ company knew would work great (based on current market conditions), but then backfired the second time. When the auction was run the first time, the supply (greatly) exceeded demand, and the buyer was able to cut a lot of fat out of the margin. But then, as the global economy was growing, by the time the buyer got back to the category, supply was constrained, the supplier’s raw material costs were rising, and there was no fat left to trim. Lucky buyers saw a cost reduction of 2% or 3% (compared to the 12% or 23% they saw in the first auction) but unlucky buyers actually saw costs increase!

e-Invoicing

In the early days, Procurement and AP Automation technology suppliers were promising to solve this problem by way of cXML, OCR, or Supplier Networks, each of which have their failings. cXML required the supplier to have a solution that was capable of delivering invoices in cXML, which, in the early days, was limited to suppliers who also used Ariba (who developed the protocol), and as this was a small percentage of the supply base, it was a dismal failure. OCR, which was, and is, still maturing, also proved to be a train-wreck as it failed miserably on poorly formatted invoices, invoices with fonts that were too small, invoices that were hand-written or that had hand-written notes, and invoices that used unrecognized abbreviations — which, combined, were the majority of invoices.

Spend Analysis

In the early days, the tools were very difficult to use, classification and cleansing was even harder, and most companies had to outsource the analysis which often costed high six figures when all was said and done. In addition, since most vendors didn’t understand the operations of the company intimately, or the many ways the different business units categorized their data, and relied heavily on simple auto-classification to speed up the project (and attempt to make it more profitable for them), the classifications were often filled with classification and categorization errors that could only be corrected by changing the rule set and rerunning all the data, which typically took the provider at least a week. And if you wanted to see the data classified (or cubed) another way for comparative purposes, forget it.

Punch-Out

The purported answer to catalog proliferation, all punch-outs did was proliferate their own set of of problems. Just like many AP departments were drowning in paper (invoices), many Procurement departments were drowning in paper (catalogs). Punch-outs were supposed to solve that problem, as all you supposedly had to do was punch-out from your shopping-cart to a punch out to find what you wanted, no catalogs needed. Well, for this to work, the supplier had to support punch-out, the supplier had to have enough technical sophistication to support multiple pricing models (and always apply your contract pricing), and your IT team had to have the technical sophistication to properly integrate your supplier’s punch-out. And then you had to rely on the supplier to actually get the contract pricing right. Did everything go right all the time? Not even close.

And what are the leading Supply Management companies promoting today? Come back tomorrow to find out.

Supply Management Should Drive M&A Evaluations

But don’t look to e-Auctions to save the day. As per SI’s recent post, the entanglements of e-Auctions could get in the way.

Last fall, e-Sourcing Forum published a two-part series on M&A and e-Auctions, stating that what’s old may be new again, which claimed that e-Auctions could be a perfect tool for procurement in post M&A scenarios as they provide a competitive advantage for industries frequently involved in M&A activities. They can, if the situation is right, or they can be as useful as a trap door in a life-boat. There is no one-size fits all sourcing tool, and if you get it in your head to force-fit a sourcing tool to your situation, e-Auctions should be on the bottom of your list because they can bust as bad as they boom.

The rationale presented for their selection as the potential perfect e-Sourcing tool in the post-merger environment is based on the fact that e-Auctions can:

  • put negotiations directly into the hands of the suppliers,
  • create fair competition between suppliers by creating a level playing field,
  • provide suppliers with more direct/immediate feedback on their position in the market, and
  • drive “truer” market pricing and justifications for establishing baselines post-merger.

This is all true provided that:

  • the majority of suppliers, including those that are currently preferred, are willing to negotiate through the auction,
  • the buyer designs the auction in a way that is fair to all suppliers,
  • the auction platform can support real-time feedback to all suppliers taking part in the auction, and
  • the suppliers don’t collude and don’t make unrealistic bids in an effort to win the auction, hoping to make up the unsustainable loss either in volume or add-on fees or future business.

In order for auctions to work, especially in a post-M&A scenario, a number of conditions need to hold true.

  • supply has to at least equal, and preferably exceed, demand as per our post on the entanglements of e-Auctions,
  • there has to be enough qualified suppliers to make the auction competitive — if only two suppliers can supply the custom product or service you need, the auction ain’t gonna do squat except offend suppliers who should be your strategic partners,
  • there has to be enough volume to make the event worthwhile — saving 1% on 100,000 is not going to be worth the time and effort, and, most importantly,
  • there has to be enough categories that meet these requirements that are available to source in the first year, as it will typically be the case that both companies have contracts in place for a large number of their high-spend or high-volume categories, and, furthermore,
  • these categories have to be significantly larger than they were before the merger — if the merger does not yield enough common categories that are available to source at volumes that are high enough to be more attractive to the supply base than each company would source on its own, then the merger / acquisition is not going to yield any sourcing quick wins by way of e-Auction.

If neither company has a lot of spend under contract, neither company has a large number of complex products or services that can only be sourced from one or two suppliers, and both companies source a large number of overlapping products and services, then, if the market is ripe, the supply base is willing, and the buying team can design and deliver a fair and professional e-Auction, then e-Auctions can drive M&A success. But if the opposite is true, all e-Auctions will do is get the M&A team into trouble.

As with every sourcing exercise, it must start with a situational, and spend, analysis to see what’s what.

A Major Disruption to Supply Chains Occurs Every Day – Is Yours Ready?

In 2013, Resilinc, a provider of supply chain resiliency soutions, reported 355 major Event Notifications that significantly impacted all supply chains that were in the vicinity of, or connected to, the event, which included natural disasters (hurricanes, floods, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tornado, extreme weather, and other force majuere events), man-made disasters (factory fires/explosions, power outages/shortages, factory shut-downs, chemical spills, etc.), extreme economic events (labour strikes, bankruptcies, port disruptions, levying of major fines, etc.), geopolitical events (acquisitions, rioting, FDA actions, etc.), and recalls, to name a few. Some of these events, such as bankruptcies, were localized to a few dozen companies that depended on the supplier that went bankrupt, but others, such as the Solomon Islands earthquake and tsunami off the coast of Japan or the Haiyan Typhoon in the Philippines (that wiped out a number of coastal cities) affected thousands of sites and the tens of thousands of supply chains that depended on the suppliers that had factories, warehouses, and/or other operations at those sites.

The impact of these events on their respective supply chains ranged from tens of thousands of dollars to hundreds of millions. If a factory that produces a critical single-sourced component for your most profitable product line is destroyed, the costs associated with finding a new source — which include, but are not limited to, manpower costs, premium production costs, premium raw material costs, downtime costs, lost customer costs, etc. — add up quickly and can easily run into the tens of millions for large high tech, equipment manufacturing, aerospace, and automotive companies.

But if your company is prepared, most of these costs can be mitigated. How do you prepare? You make the right investments in supply chain resiliency. To find out how to get support from the C-Suite for these investments, tune into this Wednesday’s webcast on Justifying Investments in Supply Chain Resiliency in 2014, sponsored by Sourcing Innovation and Resilinc.

Top 12 Challenges Facing India in the Decades Ahead – 10 – China

China is currently everything India is not. While India is the land of contradictions, China is the land of conformity. While India is an infrastructure nightmare, China, which is already decades ahead of India in infrastructure, is investing heavily, building rapidly, and getting even further ahead. While India is in a perpetual state of energy crisis, the energy sector in China, where the government can effectively control the 11 companies that used to compose the State Power Corporation (SPC), is stable and increasing energy production year over year to meet the needs of its population which make it the world’s second largest electricity consumer after the United States. (In 2011, annual power generation was 4693 TWh, which was over five times the power generation in India that peaked at about 877 MWh.)

But it’s not just infrastructure and energy that China has the lead on. It’s just about everything else too. As per a recent NYT (New York Times) article on Why India Trails China, India has an even bigger problem. In particular, it’s the ever-increasing gap between India and China in the provision of essential public services. And while inequality is high in China (as the 1% control 70% of the country’s wealth, compared to the US where the 1% only control 35% of the country’s wealth), China has done far more than India to raise life expectancy, expand general education, and secure basic health care for its people. Plus, literacy in China significantly exceeds literacy in India at 95% vs 74% in India. While India has elite schools of varying degrees of excellence for the privileged, among all Indians 7 or older, nearly one in every five males and one in every three females are illiterate. And while China devotes 2.7% of its GDP to government spending on health care, India allots a mere 1.2%. (That’s probably why China has a much lower child mortality rate that is less than one third of India’s. See A View from the East.)

In terms of business, China is ahead of India in many respects. China exports goods almost twice as fast, registers property more than twice as fast, and business start-up times are almost 33% faster! (See: IndianEconomy.org) Despite being a democracy, India is less politically stable and more corrupt. (See: Interlink India) And the proof is in the GDP pudding. In 1995, when India represented only 3% of world GDP, China represented 6% of world GDP, and in 2010 when India was still only at 5% of world GDP, China was at 14%. (See: The India Site) And while India is expected to increase its GDP by a mere 4.4% next year, China is still on track to increase its GDP by 7%.

Infrastructure. Public Well Being. GDP. While just a few measures of global influence, they are a few important measures and China is leading on every single one. That’s why China is projected to have almost a quarter of the Global GDP in 2025 (by The Conference Board), more than triple what it had in 2000, while India is projected to have a mere 8%, only double what it had in 2000. If India wants to achieve its destiny of being the second most prosperous and influential country on the planet, it will have to at least keep up with China instead of losing ground every day.

10 Years Ago Today Gave Us Proof That Even the Improbable Is Likely

When a decomposing sperm whale spontaneously exploded in the town of Tainan, Taiwan whilst being transported for a postmortem examination. (Source: Wikipedia) The exploding whale splattered blood and whale entrails over surrounding shop fronts, bystanders, and cars. No one was hurt, but likely quite a few people were shocked. Plus the blood and other stuff that blew out on the road was disgusting, and the smell was really awful.

This just goes to show that no matter how unlikely a disruptive event is in the context of your supply chain, it could still happen and you should be prepared when it does.