Category Archives: Guest Author

Analytics I: Optimization Comes of Age

Today’s post is by Eric Strovink of BIQ.

I remember my first experience with optimization. I was taken to a guidance counsellor’s office at my local high school, where a special terminal was set up. This terminal was connected to a system that would allegedly try to find the “best” college for me. It asked many questions. Questions like, “Would you prefer a warm climate?” and “Would you prefer an academic setting with equal numbers of men and women?” Well, duh. Those were easy answers.

My goal was to attend one of the premier engineering schools in the US. I wanted MIT or CalTech or Stanford or Carnegie Mellon. I’d be happy with Rice. If my grades or scores weren’t good enough for the snooty super-competitive schools, I’d try for Rensselaer or Northeastern.

The system ended up choosing an entirely unsuitable school, evidently equally weighing my academic preferences and my social and geographic preferences.

What’s my point? Well, in a microcosm, this has been the essential problem with optimization. When you provide a “constraint” — and let’s be precise, here, the term really is “constraint” — an optimizer will not look outside that constraint for options. It cannot. It is a mathematical engine, and it can’t read your mind and figure out which is a “soft” requirement and which is a “hard” requirement. As far as it’s concerned, they’re all requirements, and, by whatever God you (don’t) believe in, it will find a solution that fits those requirements, if there is one.

That’s one reason why optimization has struggled to find its way.

I was listening to my wife talking to a survey telemarketer the other day. She said, “I really don’t have an opinion about Blue Cross’s responsiveness to patient needs. I’ve never had Blue Cross.” There was a pause. Then she said, “But how can I have an opinion on a 1 to 10 scale, if I’ve never used them?” There was another pause. She said, “OK, but ….” There was another pause. She sighed, and said, “OK, 5.”

What’s my point? Well, do you really know the answer to what kind of constraints you should impose on your optimization model? Or are you supplying an answer because you don’t know the answer, but you have to supply something? And after the optimization model has solved, can you remember all the places where you guessed, but you didn’t really know? What if you forgot one of those places? And what if that one guess caused the model to solve in a really non-optimal way (non-optimal from your perspective, not its)?

That’s another reason why optimization has struggled to find its way.

The breakthrough has come with what I’ll term “guided optimization”. If you hike in the White Mountains of New Hampshire, for example, you have a large number of excellent trails to choose from. Many of them are safe climbs that lead to outstanding views and vistas; but others lead up steep, often wet cliffs that are unsuitable for casual hiking. You need a guide; in this case, any of the excellent guide books from the Appalachian Mountain Club. In the case of optimization, your guide usually needs to be an experienced practitioner who can help you set up your model, show you how to move constraints to find inflection points in your model, and so on. (The good news is that lots of vendors provide guided services now, and it isn’t that expensive. Especially when you consider that optimization can be incredibly valuable.)

Companies that provide guided optimization services, like Trade Extensions, have enjoyed solid growth and have left a legacy of satisfied customers. You can always use optimization software on your own (Trade Extensions is no exception); but until you really understand what you’re doing, it can be unwise.

Optimization vendors have claimed for years that their systems are usable by novices. I don’t dispute that there are cases where this is true, and has been true. But for me, it’s a case of crying wolf: there have been so many claims, for so many years, with so many tears, that I’m solidly in the “get a guide” camp. I do hope, though, that optimization vendors will take additional steps to make guidance unnecessary. the doctor has assembled a pretty comprehensive list of what needs to happen.

At the end of the day, if you can’t do analysis yourself, you’re less likely to do it at all; which, as you’ll see in the next installment, is the theme of this series.

Next: Analytics II: What is Analysis?

Share This on Linked In

The Strategic Sourcing Debate, Part VI: Yup. It’s still dead!!

Today’s guest post is from Dalip Raheja of The MPower Group, who declared that Strategic Sourcing is Dead, and who has returned to poke the hornet’s nest once more.

A very special thanks to those who engaged in a substantive debate, whether you agree or disagree with us. I am grateful for your time and kind consideration of our arguments and hope that you will continue to engage in the conversation. That was the Intended Consequence. The Un-Intended Consequence was the tone and tenor of some of the reactions. Let me apologize to those who got quite offended by my writing/language skills. As I have said in almost every conference I have spoken at over the years, I am a 3rd world immigrant trying to make a living here and learn the language at the same time, and that is still obviously a challenge for me.

I did not realize that this was a contest and that the doctor was playing Simon Cowell. Had I known this, I at least would have gotten a haircut and put on a nice suit! But let’s forget for a moment who won or lost, according to the doctor, and let’s look at the substantive points made by a number of the respondents. I will address some of them here, and others in a later post.

Clearly, Tim Cummins (IACCM, The Death of Procurement) and I mostly agree on the substance of the hypothesis. Where we may disagree is how to solve some of these issues. What is unique about IACCM is it represents a very innovative nexus in that it brings both the buy and the sell sides together. Especially if you fundamentally believe at the end of the day that the Intended Consequence for both sides is to establish relationships (commitments according to Tim) which create and deliver mutual value beyond the contracted transaction. In fact, there are organizations where both of these functions (buy AND sell side contracting) have been organized under a single leader and we think that is just a fascinating opportunity to maximize value. We call it the JANUS model (feel free to come up with your own name). We think one of the Next Practices the community should adopt is that the Sourcing/Supply Chain function should be an integral part of the sales process (Mpower Blog). Let that sink in for a while and hopefully you will agree. For a detailed discussion between Tim and me on this topic, you can listen to a recording of the webinar Tim and I just delivered:

It is also interesting to note the most recent post entitled “(The) Strategic Sourcing (Debate Part V): My 2 Cents” where the author states in his opening paragraph:

“It’s called strategic, but it’s not used strategically.”

Strategic sourcing, for the most part is seen as a procurement function, and typically, a transactional process leveraging tools such as RFx and Reverse Auctions in a tactical manner. Some large consulting firms, who offer services, treat Strategic Sourcing services similarly and mainly are utilized as “staff-augmentation”. For manufacturing organizations, where materials can be 60%-80% of the cost of goods, sourcing of direct materials needs to be approached as a Supply Chain challenge. Take the direct materials at the point of consumption and work backwards in the supply-chain several tiers, and understand costs. When the Supply Chain is worked cooperatively with suppliers, an organization can ask the question “How we reduce each others costs without adversely impacting each other’s margins”?

No disagreement with what he has to say. He does go on to give some examples of exceptions and while I don’t agree with all his examples, I would be very happy to agree there are many examples of pockets of excellence and we should find them and extract the Next Practices. However, I still maintain that to make the kind of dramatic change we need to make, mere CPR at this stage may not be enough.

In the post titled “Where does Strategic Sourcing fit in?”, the author shares a very similar professional background as mine (been there/done that, speaker and advisor) and has clearly posted a very thoughtful, measured response and I could not agree more with the gist of what he has to say. He lays out three questions, which he writes are even more fundamental, and I am happy to concede his point for a minute. What becomes obvious is we both end up in the same place … it hasn’t worked, it ain’t working, and it needs fixing right away.

“Do your senior executives understand the enormous potential of modern supply management (only one element of which is strategic sourcing)?”

I concur with this totally and this is exactly the argument we are laying out. What the author calls the “enormous potential” is what we are referring to when we talk about the destroyed value. And it is very clear senior executives do not understand that their Sourcing/Supply Chain organizations can help them get at this value because they only see their Sourcing organizations focused on cost/TCO.

“Do your senior executives understand how to achieve that enormous potential — i.e., how to build the transformation roadmap and how to support it?”

The quick answer is no. The more detailed answer is almost all organizations assume if they keep investing in their infrastructure (the consonants), they will get the results. And if the past few years have proven anything, it’s that this misses the whole issue of the vowels … how will these practices and the latest gizmos and technology be Adopted, Executed, Implemented, Optimized and Utilized?

“If the answer to the first two questions is ‘no’, are you prepared to take a leadership role in helping your senior executives achieve the necessary awareness? If not, then debating the ‘strategic sourcing is dead’ question is moot at the company level.”

And this gets at the crux of the issue because in a large majority of the cases, the answer to number three is a resounding NO!!! Furthermore, the follow-up question is why are we still where we are after 25 years? Until we understand that issue, I’m not sure how we go about determining how to fix it. Our research suggests that the biggest reason is the singular focus on cost (TCO etc.) gets in the way of senior executives achieving the necessary awareness because cost is but one element of their decision criteria and that is why we must fundamentally alter the sourcing process and initiate the process with their decision criteria while not abandoning cost.

The author then goes on to say:

 

  • Believe it or not, 25 years after the birth of strategic sourcing, many companies of all sizes still are not aware of “true” strategic sourcing.
  • Equally astonishing, a surprising number of companies believe they are using strategic sourcing, but in fact are not.
  • Perhaps as a reaction to the need for “quick wins” in the current business environment, some companies who previously used a true strategic sourcing process have since “dumbed down” their process into a tactical ghost of what it used to be.
  • As noted above, trying to introduce and embed strategic sourcing without the supporting pillars of a transformation roadmap is likely to generate only short-lived benefits.

 

And to all of the above, I have a simple one word response … AMEN!! And that is exactly why we are issuing the clarion call to acknowledge that it hasn’t worked, it ain’t working, and we need to fix it right away. It was also very heartening to see a reference to a Transformation Roadmap because that is exactly what we have been recommending and delivering to clients for more than a decade. I will agree we are going further and saying the current approach and process (even with the latest technologies, decision optimizers, risk simulators, etc.) ain’t gonna work; and, we can either keep trying to fix it or we can all agree that we need to apply a fresh perspective and come up with something totally different.

So please join the debate, and yes, debate implies a conversation. All I ask is that we keep the confrontations constructive and stay away from the name calling, innuendo, and disparaging comments. We will be the first ones to admit that if we are now right, then obviously we too have been wrong in the past. And if you are truly a committed defender of the status quo, our best wishes to you. I will respond to some of the other commentary in a later post. I will also provide my reading of the Doctor’s TVM and Gartner’S DDVN.

Thanks, Dalip!

Share This on Linked In

(The) Strategic Sourcing (Debate Part V): My 2 Cents

Today’s guest post is from Sudy Bharadwaj, ex-analyst extraordinaire of the Aberdeen Group, former VP of MindFlow, former CMO of Informance, and, most recently, a star at Inovis.

There is lots of debate in the blogsphere about what is strategic sourcing — whether or not it’s dead, alive, or a zombie. Over the past several months, discussions with consulting firms, large/small enterprises1, and technology vendors has revealed a few items:

“It’s called Strategic, but its not used Strategically”

Strategic sourcing, for the most part is seen as a procurement function, and typically, a transactional process leveraging tools such as RFx and Reverse Auctions in a tactical manner. Some large consulting firms who offer services, treat Strategic Sourcing services similarly and mainly are utilized as “staff-augmentation”. For manufacturing organizations, where materials can be 60%-80% of cost of goods, sourcing of direct materials needs to be approached as a Supply Chain challenge. Take the direct materials at the point of consumption and work backwards in the supply-chain several tiers, and understand costs. When the Supply Chain is worked cooperatively with suppliers, an organization can ask the question “How we reduce each others costs without adversely impacting each other’s margins”?

The Starting Point

One area missing in many Strategic Sourcing processes is a clear understanding of objectives of the process, the organization, or even a sourcing event. Is the focus on cost? A quick answer can be yes, but further details shows that enterprises are balancing cost with quality, supplier performance, and a host of other factors. A large consumer goods company recently awarded contracts which were 10% higher than the previous year to a different supply-base, due to very poor supplier performance the original supply base the prior year (late shipments). The objective of that sourcing event was shifting to more reliable suppliers while keeping the cost of the category within 15% of the previous year. Therefore, a 10% increase in costs actually exceeded expectations.

How are some enterprises leveraging Strategic Sourcing? They are leveraging strategic sourcing initiatives in other areas of their business.

Examples:

Product Design Process Understanding cost structures, supplier capabilities and/or metrics when in the design process and adjusting as needed pays large dividends, since changes later on during the product lifecycle can results in much higher costs or longer innovation cycles. A consumer electronics manufacturer recently had to eliminate a product launch, due to the fact that a critical component, which was cost-effective at lower volumes, was more expensive at higher volumes, thus causing the product’s profitably to fall below acceptable levels.

Manufacturing Knowing which suppliers adversely affect production can be key in understanding qualitative factors (such as cost) vs. quantitative factors such as quality. If a specific supplier is 5% less expensive than others, but, due to inconsistent quality, causes lower yields, is that 5% in savings costing 10% in other costs such as product re-do’s, overtime, or waste?

Supply-Chain Strategy. By having extended supply chains, organizations now off-load much of development and manufacturing of their products to third parties. Should organizations take back some of this manufacturing, perhaps a final assembly step, in order to drive cost savings, perform better customer satisfaction (by offering custom final assembly), or achieve other objectives?

Is Strategic Sourcing Dead?

For some organizations, it may as well be, since top-performers leverage Strategic Sourcing in manners described above, or in other ways, thereby outperforming their industry peers. These top performers also take a multi-year view. For example, in year 1, develop an understanding of the cost structure of key materials or components. In year 2, leverage this knowledge and work with those suppliers who can attack the key parts of cost, lowering the overall cost of a product, thus increasing profitability, or maintaining profitability as the organization faces price-pressures. In year 3, the organization may start to drive out cost by (1) aggregating specific key components across it’s supply-base, (2) taking positions on these components in commodity markets, and (3) requiring the supply-base to purchase these components from the commodity positions.

Thanks, Sudy.

1 Primarily Manufacturing firms in a variety of industries: Hi-Tech, CPG, Process, Oil & Gas, Pharmaceuticals, Discrete Manufacturing, etc.

Share This on Linked In

Working Capital Improvement: The View from 30,000 Feet

Today’s guest post is from Sudy Bharadwaj, ex-analyst extraordinaire of the Aberdeen Group, former VP of MindFlow, former CMO of Informance, and, most recently, a star at Inovis.

There has been considerable emphasis in improving working capital among large and small enterprises alike. While the reasons may seem obvious, to state a core objective: unleashing working capital provides more cash for other areas in the business and reduces dependency on credit. According to a recent benchmark by CFO Magazine(c) the working capital metric, DWC – Days Working Capital, of the top-1000 US-based public companies (excluding financial service companies) degraded 8.2% from FY 2008 to FY 2009, the worst degradation in years. Interestingly enough, when reviewing the individual performance of these companies, 464 of these companies actually improved their DWC

The Best are Balanced

Working capital initiatives can seem daunting, but an analysis of the data can lead to some key insights. Using the same data and stack-ranking all 1000 companies by DWC (1 = best improvement, 1000 = most degradation) identifies a trend among the top 25% of companies (Chart 1) who improved DWC by a median of 23%. A deeper analysis of the data on the three sub-metrics which make up DWC — Days Sales Outstanding (DSO), Days Inventory Outstanding (DIO) and Days Payable Outstanding (DPO) yields a further understanding into what drove this performance. A key finding is that 29% of the Top 25% of performers saw improvement in all three sub-metrics: DSO, DIO, and DPO. In other words, their improvement initiatives were not just in one area, they were in all three areas.

Median DWC Improvement from FY08 to FY09
The median DWC of the top 25% of performers improved (dropped) by 23%
Looking further down the rankings at the remaining 75% yielded the following insights: 57% of the bottom 75% saw improvement in NONE of the three DWC sub-metrics.

The conclusion from 30,000 feet: focusing on all three metrics greatly improves the odds of improving DWC. Not focusing on all three? The results are obvious.

Thanks, Sudy for explaining the key to improving working capital is to focus on initiatives that improve the core metrics and not the stupidity I ranted about yesterday.

Share This on Linked In

The Sourcing Emperor Has No Clothes!

Today’s guest post is from Dalip Raheja, President and CEO of The Mpower Group (TMG) and a contributor to the News U Can Use TMG blog.

As we pointed out in our last post (where we killed off the old sourcing process), Strategic Sourcing has always been fundamentally flawed. It clearly did not deliver the promised results years ago and it isn’t delivering the right results today. Furthermore, I would argue that the results that Strategic Sourcing is delivering may not be totally accurate because the unintended consequences that the function creates (more on this later) may actually destroy value. The current process is penny wise and pound foolish. That’s never a strategy for long term success. What we need is a new way of looking at this function. We need a set of next practices to elevate us beyond what current best practices recommend.

Now, there are many “defenders of the faith” who have argued, quite vehemently, that the TRUE process is not flawed; it was just never executed right. Semantics. What’s interesting is that not a single one of them has argued with our fundamental premise, that Strategic Sourcing has failed to deliver promised results and that it may have actually destroyed value along the way. I guess there’s no point in trying to change their minds as long as they agree, and they wholeheartedly do, that the traditional Strategic Sourcing process must be changed. Are you at least intrigued? Enough to at least join in the debate, regardless of which side you take?

As we alluded to in our last post, sourcing has always been focused on cost. And while cost cannot be ignored, a process that is rooted in cost cutting simply cannot be considered a strategic process for any sourcing organization. Cost has never been a long term strategy for most corporations. I’ll put it another way. Long term growth was never achieved on the foundation of cost cutting. And while we are not trying to use scare tactics generated by recent headlines outlining the major hiccups for some of the world’s largest and most admired corporations (like Toyota, Apple, BP etc.), a significant portion of the conversation around those blunders is focused on how squeezing costs out of either the supply chain (the entire system) or just the supply base (and there is a difference) was at the root of the problems.

Cost cutting is not viewed strategically (or favorably) by the rest of the Supply Chain either. If you think otherwise, then tell me, have you asked them? This might help explain the absolutely horrendous change management issues that we have all faced as practitioners. Cost reduction is not very high on the goal sheet of any of our major internal stakeholders, other than the CFO. And if it is, it’s either there temporarily or was imposed by someone else. What your stakeholders and their stakeholders will say is that they want Exceptional Business Results (EBR) that drive long term competitive advantage. Since the focus on cost or Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) ignores many of the other elements that contribute to EBR, it may actually be sub-optimizing the entire system. While I do understand that we have moved from the traditional three-bids-and-a-buy to using TCO calculations, risk analysis, supplier management, decision optimizing, and all of the other best practices out there that you can buy in cubes, magic boxes, checker boards and benchmarking quartiles, it’s still not enough! Since the initial goal of the process is cutting costs, it will always be like rolling a large boulder up the devil’s staircase. We lose the argument with the entire system before we even start the conversation because they see the goal of cutting costs as a threat to the rest of those elements in their system that are contributing value towards EBR. In most cases, they are right. Most of the time, Sourcing doesn’t even know what those elements are — forget about knowing what their impact is on the EBR. This also explains why Strategic Sourcing has never been fully integrated into the Supply Chain and why many still continue to think of those two functions as separate from each other.

In addition, the argument that we proposed almost ten (10) years ago, that the sourcing process cannot be strategic and competitive differentiator if everyone else is also doing it, still holds. Think about it. We are all using basically the same process, going to the same supply base and trying to extract the same leverage using the same techniques. What we have just described is a “commoditized” process. Beating down the same suppliers that all your competitors are beating down for the same 3-5% savings just isn’t strategic. Call it something else, but it isn’t strategic!

We can continue to differentiate ourselves on the basis of improving this “commoditized” process using best practices OR we can fundamentally alter the game by using a set of next practices. We can either compete against others or we can move our organizations to competition free zones. We can either benchmark ourselves against others who are all in the “commodity” world or we can re-define the measurement system so there is no benchmark for a while. We can either move up and down the traditional TCO curve or create and relocate to a totally different value curve. We can either defend our position in existing markets or create new markets. How great would it be to get the best terms for a contract without ever needing to negotiate? That’s what I’m proposing.

There are intended consequences and unintended consequences to all Strategic Sourcing decisions. Some of these consequences have a positive impact on the overall value while others have a negative impact. Some of these are known consequences while many are unknown consequences. Since the Strategic Sourcing process is based on TCO, it often only takes into account some of the variables needed to create Exceptional Business Results. As it stands, the Strategic Sourcing process is constrained from ever incorporating all of the variables mentioned above (intended consequences, unintended consequences, positive and negative, etc.). The result, many times, is a decision that clearly optimizes at the TCO level but sub-optimizes at the system level. (Exceptional Business Results Sourcing optimizes at a systems level). Tweaking the current process with best practices will certainly give you some benefits but it will clearly not lead to any type of sustainable transformation or EBR. For that you need next practices. And over the last year, we’ve created a suite of services to help our clients capture increasing value through each step-change of the Strategic Transformation. That is the summation of our argument.

While some organizations have clearly made very good progress in elevating the role and strategic importance of the sourcing / supply chain function, I think it is safe to say that we are nowhere close to being where we all thought we were going to be by now. Wouldn’t you agree? We will also be discussing this and similar topics on our own blog, News U Can Use. Come by and weigh in on the discussion!

Thanks, Dalip!

Share This on Linked In