Category Archives: Auctions

Next Generation Sourcing

As stated in yesterday’s post, for Sourcing to continue to have an impact in a modern Supply Management organization, it needs to be taken to the next level. And I’m not just echoing the statements of The Altimeter Group, AMR, CAPS, Greybeard Advisors, The Mpower Group, Purchasing Practice, or my own persistent ramblings over the years (as I have been pushing for Total Value Management and Next Generation Sourcing strategies since day one). A modern supply management organization truly needs to take their sourcing practices to the next level if they are going to continue to distill value from Sourcing.

When you consider that:

  • Once you institute RFX, the manpower savings from automating bids can only be claimed once.
  • By the time an organization gets to the third auction, there are no more savings to be had as the fat from supplier margins has been squeezed out.
  • Once the allocation has been optimized across the supply base in a way that minimizes unit costs, transportation costs, (interim) storage costs, etc., re-running the optimization won’t lower costs further unless something changes — such as the identification of a new supplier, an alternate material (that is cheaper), or additional demand (that increases the economy of scale).
  • Once contract management and monitoring is put in place and no invoices are paid that are not for delivered, defect-free products, at contracted rates, there is no more on-contract leakage to be stopped.
  • Once controls are put in place to stop off-contract purchases that should be on-contract (through integration of the e-Procurement system with the Contract Management system), there is no more off-contract leakage to be stopped.
  • And once spend analysis has identified all the opportunities, the savings won’t actually materialize until something is done about them. This something cannot be appropriately identified unless the appropriate information is available to the knowledge worker.

As a result, in order for a mature Supply Management organization to continue to extract considerable value from (e-)Sourcing, e-Sourcing needs to be taken to the next level. Whether you call it DDSN2 (Demand-Driven Supply Networks), Next Practices, or Total Value Management, the message is the same. Take your Sourcing to the next level, or risk decreasing returns.

So where does one start? Upgrade or bring in a modern e-Sourcing platform. For some organizations, who are already using a top-tier provider and who have purchased a suite license, this will just mean learning how to take full advantage of the end-to-end integrated functionality and improving processes. For others, using point solutions from top-tier providers, this will mean buying licenses to the whole suite and/or integrating the point solutions with other solutions they already have. For the market majority, this will likely mean either replacing existing first generation systems (from providers who haven’t made any updates to the base functionality in the last five years) or, in laggard cases, skipping first generation e-Sourcing systems entirely and starting off with modern systems that have better, integrated, functionality.

And then, once these systems are in place, processes are updated to capture more data and consider more information in sourcing decisions, in a process that one vendor on the leading edge likes to call High Definition Sourcing.

Since this process is the closest to what Sourcing Innovation believes is necessary for organizations that want to take their sourcing to the next level (and, in the words of CAPS, become value-focussed), this will be the subject of the next series of posts (starting next week). Stay tuned!

Reverse Auctions Are Not Strategic. It Isn’t Always Strategic! Part III

This isn’t to say that they aren’t important, that they’re not one of the best methods at your disposal to quickly identify current market prices, to obtain products or services at market prices in a competitive market, and to increase transparency in your strategic sourcing efforts but, on their own, reverse auctions are not strategic.

A reverse auction is simply an electronic way of enabling a simple bidding opportunity that could just as easily be conducted in the real world (if your supplier representatives were willing to travel to the auction location to place their bids). Do you think strategic when you think of this type of public auction? No. And simply electrifying something does not make it strategic.

An online reverse auction (has the potential to) open up the auction to more potential suppliers, drive greater market transparency (if more suppliers choose to participate), and streamline your product or service acquisition, but nothing about this is strategic. It’s simply good tactics.

This isn’t to say that a reverse auction can’t be the end result of a true strategic sourcing effort. For example, if you are sourcing custom manufacturing services for a new, relatively unique, product that you are preparing to unleash on the marketplace and you have went through a supplier pre-qualification round to select a small group of suppliers you would be willing to jointly develop with (who have all received the confidential specs under NDA), you could decide to simply hold a reverse auction to streamline what could otherwise be a time-consuming multi-round RFX, but note that this is just the tactical implementation of a sourcing strategy for a strategic category. The reverse auction itself is not strategic!

And it’s definitely not strategic if you’re sourcing $1,800 worth of office supplies or store shelf inventory!

Share This on Linked In

Intengo – Doing the e-Sourcing Tango in Turkey

Intengo is a relatively new provider of e-Sourcing/e-Negotiation solutions that first appeared on the scene in it’s Native Turkey in 2006, after being founded in 2005. Like b-pack in France, it’s just starting to expand internationally, focussing on Europe first with translations to Spanish, French, and German (in addition to its native Turkish and new English language support) currently in the works.

Intengo provides an on-demand e-Negotiation platform built around (multi-round) e-RFX and e-Auction with a sprinkling of supplier information management (SIM) and catalog management thrown in. Their tool allows you to mix and match RFX and Auctions in successive rounds as you see fit. You can start with a baseline RFP, invite qualifying suppliers to an (English, Dutch, or Japanese) auction (with more variants in the pipeline), then return to a sealed bid RFP with the winners in a final negotiation around*1. It’s quite flexible and allows the organization to tailor the e-Negotiation event to their way of conducting negotiations.

It is extremely quick and easy to set up a new event, or “project”, in the system as the process is wizard-driven. It’s literally as easy as:

  1. define the basic informationevent name, details, manager, dates, and type
  2. define what the bidders can and cannot seecompetitors names, prices, ranks, etc.
  3. define the basic information and the ruleswhich can be from a template or custom defined
  4. define the itemswhich can be selected from the hierarchical catalog or defined on the spot
  5. select the supplierswhich can be selected from the supplier master or defined newly for the event
  6. define boundary parameters and extension rules (for auctions) min and max bid increments, reserve prices, etc.

One of the jewels of this solution is that the auction dashboard is jam-packed with information but yet designed in such a way that it doesn’t look the least bid cluttered. The buyer (and the bidders, with appropriate permissions) can see full event configuration details (starting, ending, extensions & rules, whether or not names and prices are hidden, etc.), current supplier rankings and percentage changes for each bid (in each lot), all bids for each item (with the lowest bid highlighted in green, and the changes from the last bid highlighted in yellow), the countdown clock, and a progress / trend graph. The bidder can also easily access the configuration screen through the management tab to extend the auction and the entire bid history through the bid list tab.

Other hidden jewels are the calendar view, which integrates with outlook and hot-links to all of the relevant screens in the relevant projects, item level multi-currency support, where the buyer can choose to define the currency or leave it open for the bidder to choose and where the buyer can choose to accept the default rates from the central bank or override with manual rates, smart unit support, fine grained access control for corporations or governments that need to limit who can see what, and the ability to easily do bulk updates on (filtered) lots so that a bid decrement (fixed or decrement) can be applied to all bids in the lot. (In comparison, many of the “commodity” auction tools don’t have fine-grained multi-currency control, automatic unit conversions, or such granular access control.)

And while the SIM and Catalog Management is basic, the user can define custom hierarchies and include supplier ratings, which is more than sufficient for many mid-market companies that still haven’t even touched modern e-Sourcing platforms. The major weakness, which is common to many of these platforms, is the lack of a custom report builder. There are built-in reports, and Intengo can build custom reports for any company that wants them, but no ability for a customer to build her own report. However, they do have Excel integration and a buyer can dump all of the information to Excel and construct her own reports which is a decent workaround if the user knows how to build a good template (where it’s just a matter of importing the exported data as needed).

They also have integrated messaging (and the ability to send e-mails), reasonable attachment management capabilities, and a moderately powerful administration section where a user can update the company profile, update their personal profile, define display settings, manage users, add and update templates for RFXs/Auctions/Projects, define additional units, input custom exchange rates, and modify the configuration profiles. All in all, it’s a solid tool for the mid-market, and one that they can offer at an affordable price-point as they are a SaaS solution. If you’re a mid-market company in Europe who is looking for a solid e-Negotiation platform to get started on the e-Sourcing path, you should definitely consider inviting Intengo to the table.

*1 If you take this approach, be sure to remember your auction ethics where you tell your suppliers up front that the winner of the auction doesn’t necessarily get the award as the auction will be followed by a final negotiation round with the top X suppliers. In addition, this strategy should only be employed in categories where you intend to split the award between two or more suppliers from the get go for risk mitigation.

Share This on Linked In

Unscrupulous Supplier Reverse Auction Tactics

Are you prepared for them?

The best part of a recent ChainLink Research piece on “Contract Management: Negotiating, Creating, and Monitoring Compliance” was actually the sidebar on supplier reverse auction tactics that presented some of the less-than-scrupulous strategies sophisticated suppliers will employ in an attempt to win, or deflect, your business. If you are not prepared for them, they could derail your event. They include:

  • bidding to purposely come in second with less aggressive price, counting on advantages in non-price areas
  • bidding low on the auction in an attempt to capitalize on lock-in to sell un-auctioned related services and materials at high margins
  • “Sniping” in “hard-ending” auctions
  • Deliberately no-bidding auctions when they calculate it is not in their interest to participate

So what can you do?

  • if you are using a total weighting, be very careful in your weighting of non-price factors and indicate, up-front, that there will be significant (and serious) financial penalties (which must be enforced) for not adhering to any promises on lead-time/delivery time, defect rate, or quality (or other relevant factors)
  • make sure you also bid out all related and associated services
  • don’t do hard-ends — always do short extensions
  • create a policy that suppliers who do not bid do not get business, period

While some suppliers might still attempt to ply their dirty tricks even if you take these steps, once they see what it costs them, they’ll stop. Or you’ll get better suppliers. Either way, you win.

Share This on Linked In

While Reverse Auctions Are Not Evil, They Are Not Salvation Either!

Despite the frequent misquoting of the work of Dr. Bob Emiliani, which is regularly used to slam reverse auctions (see Spend Matters), reverse auctions are not evil, and, used on the right category at the right time, they can provide a company with double digit savings.

However, despite the claims that appear to be made in this recent ChainLink Research article on “broadening the scope of reverse auctions”, they are not salvation either. While it’s true that some companies have proven that e-auctions can generate double-digit savings year after year, this doesn’t mean that your company will see double-digit savings, and, as pointed out in a brief history of optimization, sometimes reverse auctions result in cost increases, which can be significant.

Not only does the comprehensive auction have to be conducted properly to be successful, but the following has to be true if the company is going to see meaningful savings:

  1. There must be enough serious competition in the market.There should be three or more suppliers who can meet the company’s need at an acceptable quality level and who are willing to actively (and aggressively) compete for the business.
  2. There must be true savings potential.The company must collect index and benchmark data and determine with reasonable certainty that it’s current price is significantly higher than the (expected) average market price.
  3. The company must be ready and able to commit to the winner.If not, this will damage the company’s reputation and drive away those suppliers who could (potentially) work with the company to find ways to decrease cost.

If these basic criteria are not met, you will not see (significant) savings, and the auction will likely be a waste of time at best.

Share This on Linked In