Category Archives: Guest Author

Global Sourcing: Addressing Myths with Capabilities Part II: Corporate Social Responsibility

Today’s post is from David Henshall, Founder of Purchasing Practice. Dave can be reached at dhenshall <at> purchasingpractice <dot> com.

In this four part series, we examine eight dimensional capabilities that will help you overcome the myths surrounding global sourcing. In today’s post, we will focus on the the dimension of corporate social responsibility. (Yesterday’s post addressed cost and quality.)

Dimension #3: CSR

CSR is important in global sourcing in that it helps drive and support:

  • Business Principles & Values
  • Business Benefits realised by improving environmental and working conditions (which improves performance), lowering energy cost, reducing waste, increasing productivity, improving safety, decreasing turnover, and increasing training
  • Brand Risk Management as companies cannot rely on regulation and enforcement of environmental and labour laws in LCCs

The business case for a strategic approach to CSR in global sourcing has come to light in high profile businesses such as Ikea, who dismissed two Russian employees for allowing a supplier to pay a bribe. Further, in a recent CIPS report on Africa, bribery was seen as just a part of doing business.

From the media, we often get the impression that most multinational corporations have already adopted CSR as an integral part of their LCCS strategies. In reality, only a small percentage of the world’s international corporations, and their suppliers, have seriously embraced CSR.

Those that have typically implement a code of conduct for their suppliers. For example, Apple recently highlighted serious non-compliances with suppliers in countries such as China and Taiwan during a recent audit. The violations included employment of underage workers, improper hazardous waste disposal, false records and suppliers signing contracts with uncertified vendors.

Unilever describes CSR as the impact of the business on society. When taken broadly, this definition clearly allows scope for determination of whether a policy is a power for good, or not, within the local context by conducting an impact assessment. When backed up by an ongoing program of continuous improvement, this can prove to be a powerful tool which can support the necessary response to the media should unintended consequences arise.

Implementing a CSR Sourcing Strategy – a Category Driven Approach:

The governance model shown starts at the organisation’s overall strategic level to ensure CSR objectives and targets are consistent with the business’ overall goals.

The CSR issues should feed into the overall sourcing strategy through detailed analysis (processes, spend, supply base, and feedback from the field and SRM initiatives for all categories).

This helps establish both a baseline on a category basis and a holistic view of the global sourcing environment. The baseline then serves as the basis to prioritise future initiatives and also to measure their success. When getting started, it is best to focus on categories which have low complexity and to set achievable targets to establish quick wins. Ensure that the approach is cross-functional and that lessons learned are fed back into future initiatives.

CSR Governance Model
Click to Enlarge

Part 3 will examine Risk and Opportunities in global sourcing.

Thanks, Dave.

Share This on Linked In

Global Sourcing: Addressing Myths with Capabilities Part I: Cost & Quality

Today’s post is from David Henshall, Founder of Purchasing Practice. Dave can be reached at dhenshall <at> purchasingpractice <dot> com.

In this four part series, we examine eight dimensional capabilities that will help you overcome the myths surrounding global sourcing. In today’s post, we will focus on the two dimensions of cost and quality.

The myths surrounding global sourcing are many, widespread and often misleading. They usually revolve around business conducted in developing countries, the so called low cost country sourcing (LCCS) countries. LCCS is fertile ground for the politicians, humanitarians and environmentalist alike, covering misleading sound bites ranging from the export of jobs to the exploitation of child labour and the carbon footprint of the 3000 mile salad.

With the prospect of such reputation damaging headlines, it is critical for firms engaging in global sourcing to get their strategy right. This strategy must be supported by sound operational capabilities that not only manage the supply chain and the relationships within it, but that also make use of a well thought out communications strategy (should unwanted publicity arise).

Purchasing Practice has developed a global sourcing framework (GSF) that incorporates these concerns into a logical management structure, and categorises them under eight dimensions.

 

The Eight Dimensions of the GSF

  1. Cost
  2. Quality
  3. Corporate Social Responsibility
  4. Risk
  5. Opportunities
  6. Politics
  7. Local Context
  8. Enabling Infrastructure
Global Sourcing Framework
Click to Enlarge
The Breakdown of Global Savings Costs
Traditional Model

(based on industrial products example)
labor savings 20-25%
depreciation 5-10%
materials and components 10-15%
economic development incentives 0-5%
savings on manufacturing cost (subtotal) 50%
logistics, inventory costs -10-15%
ongoing management costs -5-10%
taxes and duties -0-5%
net cost savings 25%
Procurement Strategy Council Model

(factoring in hidden costs not considered in the traditional model)
cost savings in traditional model 25%
business partner non-participation -8%
business partner non-compliance -6%
savings (subtotal) 11%
resource intensive sourcing activities -4-5%
reputation risk exposure and mitigation -1-2%
actual savings realized 4-6%

 

Dimension #1: Cost

Whilst costs are typically a primary driver of global sourcing, organisations must not only factor in total landed cost but also issues such as infrastructure cost and increased risk. This can include the cost of setting up a local office or hiring external auditors to monitor your suppliers in a particular country. Additionally, an upfront investment is frequently necessary in order to ensure the sourcing relationship is aligned with business goals and policy.

When these factors are quantified in a sourcing decision, the incremental savings from sourcing to a higher risk region or country are sometimes eliminated, especially when the principle benefit is labour arbitrage. However, many organisations are finding that the benefits of global sourcing still outweigh the investments if the right global partner is in place.

According to a Procurement Strategy Council report:

“Traditional models assessing the costs of global sourcing most often consider higher logistics and inventory costs due to longer supply chains, greater management costs to oversee remote and (often) unfamiliar supplier relationships, and higher taxes and duties. While these costs can reduce net savings by roughly half, emerging markets still provide a significant cost advantage of upwards of 25% savings.” See the breakdown of global savings cost table (above).

So whilst there are low cost countries, global sourcing will always be worthy of a buyer’s attention. Buyers should, however, be aware that the state of comparative cost advantage is dynamic, not static. This is true both within and between competing countries. Buyers must therefore possess the skills and motivations to monitor these dynamics as part of their overall sourcing strategy.

Dimension #2: Quality

Quality is usually a given in procurement organisations these days and is not ‘knowingly’ compromised for cost savings. Successful LCCS can deliver quality that is equal to, if not better than, local sources. This is in part achieved by working with suppliers to help them reach the desired quality standard prior to calling off production. When this is the case, it must be recognised as an additional cost of doing business and factored into sourcing decisions over the long term. The key lies in putting in place all the right quality processes and checkpoints throughout the supply chain by qualifying inputs before they become embedded in products.

The increased risk of materials substitutions (i.e. lead paint and low grade materials) can also be driven by the refusal of Western buyers to allow suppliers to pass along cost increases which become amplified during a recession. So buyers must consider this when reviewing prices with suppliers.

Part 2 will examine Corporate Social Responsibility in global sourcing.

Thanks, Dave.

Share This on Linked In

Old MacDonald Was Right — It Is About E-I-E-I-O!

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.

Most of us missed it. They were trying to tell us about it when we werevery young. We were not even in nursery school yet! It’s all aboutthe vowels. It’s not about Old MacDonald’s farm, his pigs or hens or any of that … it’s about E-I-E-I-O! Now what do vowels have to dowith Sourcing and Supply Chain Management you might be wondering? Well, as it turns out … everything! The vowels are the most critical link between our alphabet and our language. Without vowels we don’t have words … we just have letters! Without words, we have no sentences, no language, no meaning, no intelligence — in short, we have nothing! And so it is in our organizations. We focus on the tools, templates, processes, systems (the farm, the pigs, the hens) and we forget about the most critical elements in achieving superior business results — the vowels. And without the vowels, all we have are letters. There is no meaning … and we add no value!

The vowels I am referring to are Adoption, Execution, Implementation, Optimization and Utilization. Without these, all we we have is an organization that has the best practices, the best processes, the best tools, the best templates, etc. In other words, what we have is a Toyota. We might have an organization that may be succeeding at a large scale, but we don’t have a sustainable model in the long run. For that, we need the vowels … the ever powerful vowels! If you were strategically sourcing a surgeon for yourself, I am sure you would look at more than just the tools that the surgeon has at her disposal and the training that she has been through. You would want to know what she could do with the tools and the training … n’est-ce pas?

And yet, sadly, it is still very hard to convince most organizations where they need to invest their focus and their energy. They all think that all they need is to develop the right infrastructure in terms of the processes, tools and templates and then train their people on the infrastructure and — voila — just wait for the results. We keep trying to tell them that they should budget at least an equal amount of effort in the vowels, including the help of an expert talent management consultancy, and they continue to insist that all they need is what Old MacDonald talked about … and that the vowels will take care of themselves. Alas, they don’t. The superior business results never materialize. The organization gets frustrated and decides that it needs to adopt new processes, tools and templates because the current processes, tools, and templates must be broken. The cycle starts all over again. And the lessons of childhood are forgotten … that’s it’s not in the verse … it’s in the chorus … it’s all about E-I-E-I-O!

And the focus on the vowels needs to start very early. After all, thealphabet does begin with an A! Furthermore, the focus cannot end with just the creation and training around the process, tools and templates. It has to extend all the way to the point where superior business results are achieved. And while we will need the best tools, templates and processes (for the infrastructure), the mere presence of, and training on, the infrastructure is clearly not enough. In order to truly achieve superior business results, we have to make sure that we pay attention to the vowels.

The focus has to be on what happens beyond the training, how people will actually achieve superior business results, and how they will successfully adopt, implement, and execute the processes. It is the same with supplier relationship management processes. It’s not how you design them, it’s how you implement them. You need to focus on how these relationships will be established and managed to extract maximum value. It’s not just about getting to the contract. At my company we believe in this so much that we even approached a couple of the major law firms to encourage them to include the vowels in their deliverables to clients when they work on executing large transactions between providers and suppliers to help set up these relationships. We did not avail, but we know we’re right. (By the way, it is the same with organizational structures. To optimize them, we have to focus on the lines [vowels] between the boxes, not only the boxes.)

Here is how the doctor described the goal of a transformational journey:

We mostly agree with this except we think the potential is even greater than that. A truly transformational Sourcing / Supply Chain department actually should be transforming other departments. They should be totally focused on value across the entire supply chain. The department should function as if it was a consulting group. The best strategy for such a department is actually a “Sunset” strategy. This concept, and others, will be discussed in later posts.

We will examine this issue in detail in a series of posts. We will begin the transformation journey together. We will discuss the use of maturity models, both current and emerging ones (which look almost identical to the current models) and talk about the gaps and the roadmaps. You can rest assured that we will not ignore the consonants (the maturity models, roadmaps, infrastructure and talent management) … but, we will also focus on the vowels (Adoption, Implementation, Execution, Optimization and Utilization). Because there’s gold in them thar vowels. We will take you back to your childhood, to the days of Old MacDonald, to E-I-E-I-O and then we will build a solution framework and challenge your thinking. We encourage you to join the conversation. Add a cluck, cluck here and a cluck, cluck there … and pretty soon we’ll have everywhere a cluck, cluck!

Thanks, Dalip.

Share This on Linked In

Spend Analysis V: User-Defined Measures, Part 2

Today’s post is from Eric Strovink of BIQ.

Sometimes you want and need control over how (and when) measures are calculated. Such measures are termed “user-defined” measures.

As we saw previously, there are two kinds of user-defined measures:
(1) post-facto computations that are performed after transactional roll-up (the usual definition), which we’ll consider here, and
(2) those that are performed during transactional roll-up, which were covered in Part 1.

In the above example the gray “Ref” columns are filtered on commodity count/spend in Q1 2003, and the normal column is filtered on commodity count/spend in Q1 2004. If we then additionally filter on four business units:

we can now see the quarter-on-quarter comparison for just those business units:

You can see that two filter operations are occuring every time the dataset is filtered; one for the regular filter above, and one for the reference filter, modified by non-conflicting filter operations. This “dynamic” reference filtering can be quite powerful, since the relationship between the two periods is now available at any filter position in the dataset.

Now, let’s add a post-rollup (“nodal”) computed measure that calculates the %difference between these columns. The code reads like this:

 

$%Diff$ = ($Amount$-$RefFilter4.Amount$)/$RefFilter4.Amount$ * 100;

 

Now, if we sort top down by %difference, we can see quite clearly the quarter-on-quarter difference sorted by worst to best, considering just the four cost centers above:

This percentage difference is available to all analysis modules, because it is calculated at every node, not just at the nodes that are currently being displayed.

Next installment: Meta Dimensions; but I’ll take a few weeks off before diving back in!

Previous Installment: User-Defined Measures, Part I

Share This on Linked In

Spend Analysis IV: User-Defined Measures, Part 1

Today’s post is from Eric Strovink of BIQ.

A “measure” is a quantity that’s computed for you in an analysis dataset — for example, spend, count of transactions, and so on. There could be many measures in a dataset, such as multiple currencies, or entirely different quantities such as number of units.

Measures are derived from the data supplied, and rolled up (typically summed) to hierarchical totals. Sometimes, however, you want and need control over how (and when) the measure is calculated. Such measures are termed “user-defined” measures.

Let’s first dispense with the usual definition of user-defined measures — namely, eye candy that has no reality outside of the current display window. You can identify eye candy by looking for the little asterisk in the User Manual that says “certain operations” aren’t possible on a user-defined measure. That’s the tip-off that the tool isn’t really creating the measure at all — it’s just computing it on the fly, as needed, for the current display. In order to be truly useful, user-defined measures must have reality at all drillpoints (all “nodes”) in the dataset, at all times, so they can be used freely in analysis functions, just like “regular” measures. It’s no wonder that many “analysis” products avoid performing the millions of computations required to do this properly, preferring instead to do the handful of computations required to pass casual inspection during the sales process. You’ll discover once you dive into the product that its “user-defined” measures are useless; but by then it’s too late.

There are two kinds of user-defined measures:
(1) post-facto computations that are performed after transactional roll-up (the usual definition), and
(2) those that are performed during transactional roll-up, which we’ll consider here.


Click to enlarge

In the above example there are two savings scenarios identified, “Plan1” and “Plan2”. Plan 1 is a 10% savings scenario, and Plan 2 is a 20% savings scenario. However, this savings plan is complex, because it is a real savings plan. It applies only to spend with certain vendors, and only in certain categories. Thus, as you can see from the numbers, savings aren’t just “10% or 20% of the total regardless of what the total might be”; rather, the numbers are never 10% or 20% of the total (and sometimes aren’t reduced at all) because the savings are applied only to certain vendors (24 of 30,000), and only in certain commodity categories.

So how was this done? In order to compute accurate Plan1 and Plan2 amounts at every drillpoint (i.e. every line item in every dimension), the filter criteria must be applied to each transaction as it is being considered for roll-up. And, since the percentage is likely a dynamic parameter (able to be changed by the user in real time), and since the filter is likely also to be dynamic (“I would like to add (subtract) this vendor or commodity to (from) the filter”), the cube can’t be “pre-computed” as many OLAP systems do. In fact, the roll-up has to occur in real time, from scratch; and it has to involve decision-making at every transaction. Here is the fragment of decision-making code that computes the Plan1 measure:

if (FastCompare(User.NewFamily.Filterset))

addto($Plan1$,$TransMeasure.Amount$*(100-User.VendorSpendReduction1.Plan1SavingsPercent)/100); 

else

addto($Plan1$, $TransMeasure.Amount$);

Note that this fragment resembles a real program (because it is), and it could be arbitrarily complex (because it might need to be). However, it was built by a user (with aid from an integrated program development environment), and it is compiled (on the fly, in real time) by the system into custom p-code1 that executes extremely quickly2.  The result is two additional measures that are calculated without noticeable delay.

Although it might be too much to expect a non-technical user of a spend analysis system to produce a code fragment such as the above, the cube nevertheless can be delivered to that user with the Plan1 and Plan2 measures in place, allowing him to alter both the filter parameters (“User.NewFamily.Filterset”) and the savings percentages (“User.VendorSpendingReduction1.Plan1SavingsPercent”), without having to understand or modify the code fragment in any way.

Next installment: User-Defined Measures, Part 2, in which I show how the “simple” case of post-facto user-defined measures can yield surprising and interesting results when combined with another critical concept, dynamic reference filters.

Previous Installment: Crosstabs Aren’t “Analysis”

1 The p-code instructions in this case are designed to maximize performance while minimizing instruction count.
2 BIQ executes 50M pcode instructions per second on an ordinary PC.

Share This on Linked In