Category Archives: Knowledge Management

Intesource – A Strong Sourcing Solution for Mid-Market Supply Management

When we last covered Intesource almost three years ago in 2010 in this post about intelligent sourcing through Intesource, we noted that this full-service offering eSourcing provider had a fully-featured e-Negotiation platform with SIM, document/contract management, and a relatively unique integration with Microsoft Sharepoint for those clients that ran on a Microsoft back-office and wanted to use these solutions to collaborative author documents and track changes.

Besides integration with the Microsoft platform, which is very common in the mid-market that can’t always afford, and often doesn’t need, the massive ERP solutions found in the Fortune 1000/Global 3000, other unique differentiators at the time were their massive template library for e-Negotiation events, integrated feeds from over 160 market exchanges for up-to-date raw material and commodity price information, and hands-on experience running tens of thousands of events. This put them in a restricted group of providers.

Since then, they have continued development work on the platform and added additional functionality that not only enhances the end-to-end strength of the platform, but narrows the group of competitors that can say the same. Three particular enhancements stand out — award analysis, market price centre, and mobile interfaces. We will describe each in turn.

Intesource has added an award optimization component that, while not true strategic sourcing decision optimization, is a very useful analytic component that will allow a buyer to determine a near-optimal, if not optimal, award for non-complex sourcing events. In the new component, buyers can create multiple award scenarios based on pre-defined rules, such as low-quote (which selects, for each item, the supplier with the lowest bid), low-group (which selects, for each group, the supplier with the total lowest cost for a group, or bucket, of item), or low program (which selects the supplier(s) with the lowest cost based upon a program specification, which could be to select suppliers with the highest quality, shortest-lead time, or MWBE specification where possible); or by hand-picking suppliers for each item and/or group. Then, the buyers can compare each scenario side-by-side to see how the different scenarios compare and what is gained for each price sacrifice.

Intesource’s award optimization module is not true optimization in that there is no underlying model, it doesn’t support cross-item / group rebate / discount bids, specification of capacity is currently limited to the event level and the specification of macro-qualitative constraints is limited, and you can’t yet re-run a scenario to see what would change if a supplier increased/decreased prices/quality/etc across the board by 5%, but as SI pointed out five years ago in it’s post on (Spend) Analytics vs. (Decision) Optimization, if your organization had a spend analysis product that allowed you to build a spend cube any time you wanted – on any data you wanted – on any dimensions you wanted – and then throw it away when you’re done then there would be nothing to stop you from building a cube on your RFP or Auction data, building cross tabs and tree maps, and then changing the cube to look at the data a different way. You’d find that you wouldn’t need optimization or a plethora of deterministic reports to find out who the lowest cost supplier was, who the highest quality supplier was, who the lowest cost supplier was relative to your quality metric, or any other query that can easily be answered by rank and cross-tab queries. And, as a result, you’d be able to solve many simple scenarios without optimization — and this is what this tool is attempting to do. Intesource realizes that many supply management organizations, especially in the mid-market, don’t have the advanced sourcing and modelling skills required to build complex optimization models and is endeavoring to build a tool appropriate to its user base. And while it’s not perfect, the reality is that, for an average (smaller) mid-size organization, continued development will allow Intesource to approach an 80% solution as many sourcing events and models of a (smaller) mid-size organization aren’t that complex and this type of solution will get such an organization much further than just e-Negotiation alone.  And on those 80% of events, the results will be near-optimal, if not optimal.

Intesource has centralized all of its raw material and commodity price feeds into a market price centre that integrates the feeds with additional graphing and reporting functionality, monitoring and alerts, and statistical modelling capabilities. In the market price center, users can view historical trends and price fluctuations, focus in on any particular period of time, extend trend projections into the future, monitor prices, cash, and futures contract specifications, set watch lists to monitor key categories, set alerts to immediately inform the user if a price threshold is reached or a price fluctuation exceeds a certain threshold, and even pull up all of the information associated with the exchange(s) a commodity or raw material is associated with.

Finally, like a few other providers, it is tackling mobile, but it is doing it in a smart way. The reality is that, while you might want mobile access because it sounds really cool, in practice it’s typically not very cool because you can’t do really do anything useful on a 3″ to 4″ screen, and what you can do is limited on even a 9″ to 10″ screen. Realizing that all you can really do is retrieve critical pricing and status information, Intesource is building a customized read-only interface that will allow you to determine current event status, bid information, and whether or not there is anything you need to to do or respond to when on the go.  And it’s working with its customer base to develop an appropriate interface that they can use effectively.

Other improvements since 2010 include an improved contract centre with more (user-defined) meta-data, search, and alert functionality; an improved vendor management (SIM) capability with embedded Q&A, enhanced search, attachment management, compliance, and watch-list capabilities; more milestone and scorecard management capabilities; an RFI question library with thousands of questions indexed by category, commodity, and other attributes (built on an analysis of 12 years worth of RFI data) to allow for quick definition of templates and RFIs; and a roles-based public event calendar. Intesource is constantly developing new modules, functions, and features with a roadmap largely driven by its user community as all requests are reviewed quarterly by an advisory committee and prioritized based upon overall demand and usefulness.

Intesource is a solid player in the eSourcing mid-market that should be included in the candidate pool by any company that does most of its business in North America.

Supply Chain Syllabi Suck – But Should You Be Designing One?

It’s an interesting question, and one I have to ask after coming across Adrian Gonzalez’ recent post over on Logistics Viewpoints on A Supply Chain Course Designed by You. While I agree that the average life of a supply chain text is two to three years where case studies are concerned (but not where core principles are concerned as some of the classics by Robert Rudzki and Dick Locke are still holding up eight and seventeen years later), I don’t necessarily agree that syllabi go out of date that fast, or that you are the best person to be designing one.

I also agree that trends do develop every day, that most traditional syllabi are about two decades out of date, and that an instructor should update the syllabus as required before every course delivery, but I’m not sure it should be based solely on student requests. While an instructor should attempt to address as many student questions as possible, they should be restricted to the subject matter of the course. More specifically, if the course is on sourcing and procurement technology, the instructor should not go off on a tangent on proper multi-tier supply network design, which should be a different course.

However, the real reasons that an instructor should not design an entirely student driven course are the following:

  1. Every student will likely have a different problem that he or she believes he or she needs addressed that is
  2. based on a different understanding of what proper supply management for (what) a proper supply chain (is) and
  3. that problem is not necessarily the root problem or representative of the core theory, and practical solutions, that need to be addressed.

If the student knew what she needed to learn, she would not be a student, she would, at the very least, be a mentor, if not a teacher herself. For those of you with a martial arts background, you would not be deshi, you would be yudansha or sensei yourselves. Because you have not gone before, you don’t know the way you need to go. That’s why you need a teacher, a guide, to show you the way and teach you the basics you need to know in a cohesive, relevant framework appropriate to the course. A well-designed course by an instructor who is trained in the theory and experienced in the practice will weave together the foundations with relevant examples in such a way that the student will learn to identify what the root problems are, what solutions might work, and what questions should be raised, and addressed by the instructor — who will have no problems weaving the answers in, on the fly, to the lectures at hand.

In other words, I don’t think the methodology proposed by Adrian is necessarily the right process for designing a course, but I do think it’s a great process for tweaking a course, and, more so, for determining what course(s) a student should be taking. In other words, an organization or institution offering Supply Management and Supply Chain training should, before allowing students to enrol in a course,

  • request that the students fill out a questionaire that outlines their key questions and topics of interest a month or so in advance,
  • analyze the responses and determine potential best fits between the students and the courses being considered, and
  • create pre-course discussion groups, facilitated by the likely instructor, a few weeks in advance and invite the students to participate in the group to gather consensus on key topics, issues, and questions that should be addressed — and figure out if the course is really for them.

Then the provider can let students register, knowing that there will be good fits, and the instructor can tweak the course to be as relevant as possible to the needs and interest of the students, using the most relevant case studies and focussing on the secondary topics of common interest once the core material has been covered.

Of course this is just the doctor‘s opinion (and his only real qualification for this argument is that he has been an Assistant Professor in Academia and an Industry Trainer), and it will be interesting to see the results if 30 (thirty) practitioners take Mr. Gonzalez up on his offer.

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

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

 

What’s Worse Than a Walmart Consultant? A Sleazy Consultant!

After my recent post on how Walmart Changed the World … But Not Necessarily for the Better, I reminded my Twitterers* about what happens when you use Walmart Consultants. In a nutshell, when you pay a cut rate, you get a cut job … and the pleasure of the consultant blaming you for his or her incompetence.

However, this is still better than what you get when you use a sleazy consultant (who, in another life, was probably a lemon, err, used car salesperson). As per this great post over on the Enterprise Irregulars on “Screwing the Customer” (Tales from the Crazy Consultant File), we can still be surprised by the antics of some consultants. The post chronicled two stories.

In the first story, a small, profitable business that was a multi-million dollar money machine, bought on-premise ERP software from a reseller that poorly fit their needs. Since the reseller did not specialize in implementation, the firm wanted the vendor to find them another implementation services company. But since the vendor had no relationship with the buyer, the buyer was dependent on the reseller to find, and manage, the implementation of software that poorly fit their needs. The buyer has outsourced control, leverage, and judgment to an unworthy consulting firm. Translation — the customer is screwed.

In the second story, a small consulting organization has a multi-million dollar change management contract with a large state agency. Part-way through the project, the consulting company unilaterally shifted its focus to advising on tools and methodologies. The state agency threatened termination, and the consultancy responded with a large invoice and threats of legal action. Meanwhile, the agency hiring manager has limited options since any change would involve delays and additional expense. Translation — this customer is also screwed.

Unfortunately, the sleaze is not limited to these two examples. The Supply Management space also has its share of sleazy consultants, which are our equivalent of the the used car (lemon) salespersons, and many of them fall into the following two categories:

Slippery Spend Analyst

Yes, it’s true, that the doctor promotes a good spend analysis almost as often as he promotes a good optimization-based sourcing project, but there are two types of spend analysts in the world. Those that educate you, and those that just tell you where your spend is too high and offer to negotiate it down for you. In the short term, this works great — the consultant identifies a category, like telecom, where you are 15% over market average and the consultant negotiates your rates down to 5% below market average and you save 20%. But in the long term, as users are added to and removed from the plans, and usage changes, rates creep back up and in three years your organization is again paying 15%-plus over market average. And, again, you have to pay the consultancy to do the spend analysis to reduce your rates. Now, if they had trained you on their process and one or more tools, you’d have the option to do it yourself, or to just use them for the negotiation. But since they didn’t, you’re left in the dark.

Recovery Specialist

This is a wonderful racket. Almost every big organization overpays its suppliers due to duplicate payments on the same invoice (by accident, when it is resubmitted due to a late payment), duplicate payments against the same products (as the organization will resend the invoice with each shipment corresponding to the same PO), overpayments (because negotiated payments were misapplied), and failed deductions (because parts were bad and payment was not refunded). But not every organization catches all of these overpayments, which can add up to Millions for Global 3000s. There are consultancies out there that specialize in this recovery, and this is a good thing as long as they don’t take advantage of you.

The problem is that most of the consultancies that specialize in recovery use “black-box” methods to identify these overpayments, which are guarded more securely than Fort Knox. So even though they might find an organization a Million in savings, and take Two Hundred Thousand as a Fee, the organization isn’t that much better off than if it hadn’t hired the consultancy because. In as little as eighteen months, there will be another Million in overpayments hidden in the books because the consultancy didn’t tell the organization how the majority of overpayments originated or what best practices the organization could adopt to minimize the amount of overpayments it made. This could allow the organization to go longer between significant recovery audits, and the organization would likely pay less, and lose less, over time. A good recovery firm will do this, and a really good recovery firm will even advise you on the software options that exist to plug some of the holes in your payment processes and/or tolls that will automate part of the recovery process.

* Yes, the doctor is on Twitter, riding the Fail Whale as he chases the Twitter Bird (because the doctor wants his marbles back)!