Category Archives: Manufacturing

(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

Want to Fail Faster? Automate it!

This recent article in the McKinsey Quarterly on “a better way to automate service operations” nailed it: processes and work practices are best designed and implemented before companies roll out the new IT. Otherwise, the COO will walk into the field operations control center after spending millions on a new automated scheduling and dispatching system (and over a year implementing the software and installing the hardware) only to find that response times have not improved, and the number of jobs each engineer handles in a day has not increased.

This experience is all to common for leaders of service operations organizations that manage large groups of remote or distributed employees, including those that have made multi-million dollar IT investments in areas such as automated dispatching, schedule prioritization, workflow automation, and performance management. This is because these systems require processes and work practices different from those used in non-IT enabled situations.

This means that before a company implements a new service management system, the company not only has to sit down and baseline its current operations, but determine how these processes need to change in order to appropriately utilize the capabilities of an automated system. This is because best practices developed over the years to insure that manual processes don’t break down tend to be over cautious due to the limitations of the average person to manually schedule hundreds, or thousands, of resources across thousands of jobs — limitations that today’s software doesn’t have.

To succeed, a company needs to go back to square one and define the goals of its service operations, the resources it has available, and the equipment at the resources’ disposal. It has to throw away all of the old rules and constraints and be sure to only define true constraints (an engineer is only available 8 hours a day, service for tier 1 contracts must occur within 24 hours, etc), not perceived constraints (an engineer can only handle two calls a day, the repair must be by an engineer at the closest office, etc.). And then it has to trust the system which can optimize across thousands of variables.

Share This on Linked In

Five Ways to Maximize Profits from Supplier Automation

A recent article in Industry Week on “5 Ways to Maximize Profits” from Supplier Automation had some good tips on how to maximize your return from your supplier automation, provided they are implemented properly. This post will explain how to get maximum results from Industry Week’s tips.

  • Avoid the 80/20 trap

    When you only automate 80% of your suppliers, what happens is that the remaining 20% consume 80% of your procurement staff’s time and effort who have to enter data, track down errors, and deal with inquiries that would be avoided with an automated system. In other words, 80% isn’t enough. You have to keep automating until the return isn’t worth the investment. While this number will vary from company to company, generally, you have to insure that at least 90% of all document exchange is automatic, if not 99%. You keep going until the ROI (annual savings / annual cost) of automating the next supplier is less than c, for c between 2 and 3.

  • Make it Affordable and Beneficial

    Not only does it have to be affordable, but it has to make your suppliers’ lives easier. If not, it won’t be adopted.

  • Beware the Middle Man

    As the article says, another unnecessary, and completely avoidable, cost, for both you and your supplier, are the recurring monthly fees charged by “Value Added Networks” (VANs) or other such middle party service providers. Let’s face it, you know who your suppliers are, and your suppliers are quite willing to make their catalogs available to you for free because they want your business. Don’t pay an extra fee for what you already know and have access to.

  • Make Supply Chain Data Actionable

    Automating document transfer enables transaction savings by significantly reducing processing costs, but it doesn’t provide strategic savings unless you act on it. Make sure the tool allows for event driven, alert-based workflows that allow you to detect unexpected events and patterns as they happen so that you can make course corrections “mid-stream”.

  • Measure and Respond

    Continuously benchmark tool usage and process times and take action if the benchmarks don’t continuously improve.

Share This on Linked In

Sometimes the Cantankerous Supplier is Right!

Even if they are too late with respect to demonstrating their correctness.

But let’s back up. Recently, on the Purchasing Certification Blog, Charles penned a great post on “the real reason buyers don’t want to give suppliers feedback”, which, in his words, were

BECAUSE WE DON’T WANT TO PUT UP WITH THIS CRAP!

where the crap in question was the salesperson effectively saying, with their incessant badgering that no other company can produce the same product of the same quality at the same price with the same service, that you are stupid. You don’t know how to make a good decision and you don’t know how to evaluate prospective suppliers.

As Charles’ points out, it happens all too often, and most of the time, the supplier is full of crap. But sometimes the supplier isn’t — and this is often true in custom manufacturing and services. I see it in IT all the time. The buyer doesn’t really understand what’s involved in building or customizing a piece of enterprise software or system and goes with one of the low bids and ends up getting a stinking pile of crap that not only costs 50% more due to project and budget overruns, but is delivered full of bugs, doesn’t include 20% of the originally specified functionality, and takes three times as much manpower to support as it should. In the end, by the time all of the extra service and support costs are factored in, it costs three times as much as the high bid from the one firm that really understood what it was doing. The same is true in custom manufacturing. There are some corners that can’t be cut, and accepting a bid that does so leads to long term cost ramifications.

However, the supplier should still back off once the buyer has made an award decision, even if it is the wrong one. Because it is not the buyer who made the stupid decision, but the supplier. If the supplier truly had a better product of a better quality at a better price and service level, then the supplier should have taken the time to provide the buyer with the education she needed to understand that when the supplier had the opportunity. Instead of chest thumping about how great they are and how they are so much better than the competition, the supplier shouldn’t have even tried to sell at all. They should have said “we know we can meet your needs better than any of our competitors, but that’s not important. What’s important is that you understand why we can do that. For you to truly understand how we are better, you need to understand what the major drivers of cost, quality, and service are around this product. So we’re going to help you with that.” And if they truly were the best solution, then the buyer should be able to see that and choose them. (And if they truly were the best solution and the buyer didn’t see it, is that a buyer the supplier really wants to be working with?)

And regardless of whether or not the supplier has the best solution or not, once the buyer makes her decision, the supplier has to back off, and this is the only appropriate response from the supplier.

“We’re very sorry to hear that you chose someone else. We still believe we could provide you the best overall value with respect to your needs and would appreciate the opportunity to try again at the appropriate time. Could you let us know when you expect to be going out to market again for this product so we can contact you again at the appropriate time to request the RFP? Also, if your chosen supplier proves unable to meet all of your needs, please feel free to reach out to us at any time. Thank you again for the opportunity and we hope to have another opportunity to compete for your business again in the future.”

Anything more and the buyer has every right to blacklist the supplier.

Share This on Linked In

If You Want to Survive as a Manufacturer, Just Get Efficient

Industry Week recently ran a lengthy article on how “the manufacturer’s world has changed forever” which purported to provide advice on how manufacturers could learn from other’s successes and mistakes and gain a greater share of customer preference, the key to success in today’s everyone-is-an-expert marketplace.

The article had seven tips, which were good, but generic and just as applicable to retailers and distributors as they are to manufacturers. The reality is that the key to success for a manufacturer is efficiency. An efficient manufacturer has a high rate of production, produces minimal waste, maintains high quality, and is very cost efficient — to the point where its total cost per unit is lower than that of its competitor. That’s the ultimate key to survival in this economy — being more competitive than your competitors.

Thinking like today’s buyer is for the designer.

Getting rid of the dead wood is implied.

Anticipating change is a fact of life.

Determination is a timeless key to success.

Urgency is the normal state of affairs today.

Inspiration is the sign of every true leader.

Alignment is the first step to getting efficient, but …

until a manufacturer is efficient, it’s chances of survival are slim. So just get efficient.

Share This on Linked In