Category Archives: Best Practices

SCD’s Seven Habits of Highly Effective Supply Chains

A recent article over on Supply Chain Digest touted The Seven Habits of Highly Effective Supply Chains 2012 in honour of Stephen Covey, who noted that too many people focus on “urgent” and not what is “important” and that changes are required to reduce the need for “urgent” activities so that more time can be spent on the “important” ones. According to SCD, these are the seven habits of highly effective supply chains.

  1. A written strategy that is regularly updated
  2. Alignment with the business is a constant priority
  3. Focus on Talent Management
  4. Fact-based Cultures
  5. Savvy Users of Technology
  6. Smart about Collaboration
  7. Organized for Innovation

While it’s hard to whittle down supply chain best practices to seven, these are a great start. In fact, if you asked the doctor what the top seven priorities were for your supply chain, you’d get:

  1. Talent Management
  2. Innovation in Process and Product/Service Offerings
  3. End-to-End Technology Platforms
  4. Mid-Term and Long-Term Strategy
  5. Organizational Alignment
  6. Data-Driven Fact-Based Decision Making
  7. Cultural & Emotional Intelligence

The only real difference, besides the order of priority, is that the doctor thinks cultural & emotional intelligence (given the global nature of supply chains) takes priority over collaboration, because CQ and EQ will enable the necessary collaboration.

The SCD article, penned by Dan Gilmore, is a good one. Check it out.

All Models Still Lead to Total Value Management

Not that long ago, Sourcing Innovation released “Taking the First Step on Your Next Level Supply Management Journey”, a white paper sponsored by BravoSolution that defined a simple 3-level maturity model that an organization can use to determine where it is on it’s Supply Management organizational journey. Noting that your organziation is either below average, above average, or best-in-class*, SI did not see any point in trying to be more complex (even though many industry associations, consulting firms, and analyst powerhouses will often proffer four and five level models).

And while the acronyms and acclamations — including VFS, Hi-Def Sourcing, Next Level Supply Management, Next Practices, and Value Chain Creation — will fly fast and furious, there is still one commonality among all leading models, including Gartners Global Trade Management Maturity Model, which is nicely summarized in this free white paper from Amber Road that offers “A Model for Value Chain Transformation”.

That commonality is something that the doctor has been prescribing for over five-years — Total Value Management (TVM). When you get right down to it, that’s what Strategic Business Enablement is all about. Maximizing value across the orgnization, end-to-end. In the sourcing process, the organizational model, the finance operation, the (information) technology platform(s), product management (& marketing), risk management, asset management, and relationships — the eight directions of the supply management navigator’s compass. QFD (quality function deployment), maximization of SUM (Spend Under Management), and end-to-end transportation management is all about extracting maximum total value for the organization. Demand creation, joint innovation, and new market entry is all about creating maximum total value for the organization.

And that’s why, if you’re not already there (above average and on the road to best-in-class), and more than half of you are not, you need to be moving to an advanced sourcing platform that supports in-depth spend-related analysis, decision optimization, collaboration, and market-informed category-based sourcing. These tools allow you to identify, maximize, extract, and retain value in your operations. For more information on these technologies, check out SI’s other recent white-paper, also sponsored by BravoSolution, on the “Top 10 Technologies for Supply Management Savings Today”.

*but not average as average can only be defined as an organization that is dab-smack in the middle of every other organization

Sound, Conventional Financial Management is NOT Good for Supply Chains

And it’s not good from a cost of capital perspective either!

While skimming through Purchasing Insight’s recent white-paper on “Supply Chain Finance: A Procurement Strategy” (after stumbling upon their recent “Supply Chain Leakage” post that got them a Sourcing Innovation Thumbs Up, I stumbled on the following paragraph:


By extending payment terms to suppliers (paying them as late as possible) DPO is maximized and by being efficient at collecting from customers (getting the money in as soon as possible), DSO is minimized. This is sound, conventional financial management. It’s all about keeping hold of cash for as long as possible, minimizing the need to borrow and providing an opportunity to earn interest on cash deposits. Poor management of DPO and DSO increases the need to borrow and, in an economic environment where credit is scarcely available to some, borrowing can be very expensive indeed.

It may be sound conventional financial management, but, in reality, maximizing DPO is just another name for screwing your supplier, and all that does is increase your costs while decreasing the overall value you are able to extract from the relationship.

All I can say is that I’m glad the next section went on to say that:


For the procurement community, payment terms can be a double-edged sword. While it’s good to contribute to the reduced cost of working capital by extending payment terms, this doesn’t always support healthy supplier relationships and it can put an inordinate strain on the finances of the supplier, which is in the interests of neither party.

Finally, someone else who realizes that screwing suppliers is a bad thing! (I’ve lost count on how many times I’ve had to rant on this subject over the last six years.) Because, as the white paper goes on to state:


There is another, more compelling reason why the traditional approach to working capital management doesn’t make sense from a procurement point of view. It costs a fortune! The fact is that the traditional, siloed, adversarial approach adopted by most buying organizations toward their suppliers has a huge supply chain cost especially in the current economic climate.

Hear, hear! In order to extract a 0.1% return by holding on to your cash an extra 30 days, you’re risking a rise in costs of 1% to 3% as your supplier passes on their high cost of factoring to you!

However, when trying to improve your working capital practices in such a way that they benefit you and the supplier to take cost out of the entire supply chain, don’t limit yourself to early payment discounts as the sole tool at your disposal. It can be a great tool, as cash strapped suppliers get cash early and you get a better return, but it’s not the only tool. Another option could be to buy the raw materials or components on behalf of your supplier. You might have more leverage with a supplier that you are doing business with on another category and be able to get a better price. A third option, especially in this economy, could be to barter services for better prices. Maybe they need help with their back-office functions. Maybe you have a great relationship with a GPO that could help them and your weight could get them better pricing, or, your technical experts, who recently oversaw the implementation of good back-office accounting and P2P software in your firm could oversee the implementation of the same software in their firm in exchange for free value-added services from them. Be creative. There are many ways to win-win.

The Category Sourcing Scorecard – An Essential Tool for Collaborative Category Sourcing

Collaborative Category Sourcing is the foundation for eSourcing 3.0, whatever that happens to be. Why? As pointed out on SI, it is the only way to achieve savings above and beyond the limits of spend analysis and/or decision optimization, which max out at an average of 11% and 12% respectively, and this is especially true when the category has been strategically sourced (repeatedly). And the savings can be substantial. As pointed out in SI’s recent white-paper (sponsored by BravoSolution) on the “Top 10 Technologies for Supply Management Savings Today” (registration required), if the right combination of technologies are applied in the right way, they can often deliver 15%, 20%, 30%, and even 40% savings on hundred-million plus categories which were heavily scrutinized in the past and where little or no savings are expected. That’s why collaborative sourcing — which works best when it’s category focussed — is needed.

But how do you select the right category to start with? It’s certainly not as simple as selecting the category with the largest spend, the category with the least recent sourcing exercise, or the category coming up for renewal in six months. There are a number of internal, market, supplier, buyer, and category-specific factors that need to be taken into account — and this recent post on The Category Sourcing Scorecard over on CPO Rising did a great job of summarizing the vast majority of them.

Internally, the right category is the one with a contract maturing at the right time (which is typically three to nine months in the future, depending on the time it will take to do the sourcing project right), a documented sourcing history, a number of concerned stakeholders — who are willing to be engaged, and an accessible spend history (which, although not clear from the summary, should also contain usage, return, and inventory history).

From a market perspective, there should be enough competition to make an event worthwhile, the availability of one or more substitutes (if the current product has one or more patented, single-source, components), some bargaining power for the buyer, and barriers to market entry for both the product the buyer is producing and the capabilities offered by the suppliers (as, otherwise, new suppliers could set up shop overnight, sell to new buyers at cut-rates to establish business, and hurt your entire supply chain). In addition, the supply/demand (im)balance, which factors into the buyer’s bargaining power, should be known and relatively predictable.

From a supplier perspective, it should require some specialization (that the supplier can use to set itself apart), provide for profit margins, contain value-add components (valuable to the supplier and your customers), and a level of technical excellence. In addition, there should be suppliers who are financially stable, innovative, and willing to work with you to find substitute raw materials, components, designs, or production processes that will take costs down and push quality up.

From a buying perspective, there should be the potential to achieve some supply assurance, minimize production impact, save money, and require a production volume that will be attractive to the suppliers. In addition, there should be some signs that costs and risks can be reduced significantly enough to make the project worthwhile. This could take the form of falling raw material prices, the recent introduction of innovative new manufacturing technologies, or increased market competition.

From a category perspective, impact, complexity, and lead time will definitely be key factors, as noted by the post, but so could organizational importance, sustainability, and C-suite support. This will often be the hardest category to judge and score.

Which brings us to the following question – how do you score the scorecard? Do all the categories have equal weight, or are some more important than others? Making them all equal is certainly a valid starting point, as it will let you quickly eliminate categories that are really bad (with low scores in multiple categories), but may not be enough to let you choose between a category which scores great except for market factors, another which scores great except for supplier factors, and a third which scores great except for category factors.

In reality, the right scoring framework will be dependent upon the ultimate goal. If the ultimate goal is (still) to reduce cost, then the market factors should get the most weight. If supply assurance is the most important goal, then the buying factors should get the most weight. And if innovation is the desired outcome, the supplier factors should likely get the most weight. While it’s hard to make a hard and fast rul, here’s a good starting point for weighting.

 

To Focus On: Put a Higher Weight On:
Cost Market Factors
Supply Assurance / Risk Mitigation Buying Factors
Innovation / Value-Add Supplier Factors
Stakeholder Inclusion Internal Factors
Organizational Strategy Category-Specific Factors

 

Where’s the Supply Management Technology Usability Guide?

There are a lot of guides out there as to what a good Supply Management Tool for Sourcing, Procurement, or Logistics is supposed to do, including a number of very detailed posts on SI (and wiki articles on the e-Sourcing Wiki that the doctor wrote, or co-wrote), but are there any guides for usability? (A google search for ‘supply management software usability guide’ comes up empty in the doctor‘s view.)

I couldn’t help but wonder this after reading an article by John A. Gentle that gave the sage advice: provide better instructional tools that offer real value. It clearly pointed out the challenge of “ineffective instructions” that logistics teams create for their suppliers, especially for how vendors are expected to complete forms, input data, and operate software that was provided by your company for warehouse and trucking operations, billing, and reporting. Now, if the provided software was so obvious and easy to use that even a fifth-grader could figure it out, then the issue of “ineffective instructions” is a small one. But the reality is that, even with most platforms that are attempting to adopt consumer-style interfaces, most procurement and logistics software is still reasonably complicated due to the complex nature of what a Procurement or Logistics package capable of supporting global trade needs to do.

Even though the functionality is well understood, the best way to lay out the functionality, and underlying workflow, is not well understood in comparison and, unfortunately, if one company builds an interface that is too close to a competitor’s for some standard functionality, instead of the formation of a standard, in America, we get a frivolous lawsuit (courtesy of the patent pirates). So even though there should be design standards, there usually aren’t.

And the poor supplier, who probably has to manage five such systems which all have completely different workflows and user interfaces, experiences more frustration than John and his Ph.D. wife who had to experience two weeks of trial and error just to reset the time on a poorly designed watch (with even poorer instructions).

I know that the very nature of software, which is always evolving, makes such a guide difficult (and that this particular challenge is compounded by the fact that America still allows software to be patented), but there should be at least some standard workflows and processes that all sourcing, procurement, and logistics software should attempt to follow in a reasonably standard way. It will make things easier for all supply chain partners, minimize unnecessary stresses and bumps, and help us evolve the profession as a whole.