Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Who Do Catalogs Serve? Not Who They Are Supposed to!

Over on Spend Matters, the prophet and the maverick recently co-authored a post that asked “Do Catalogs Serve Suppliers or Buyers More?”. The answer varied depending upon the (age of the) platform, the implementation, the intent, and the author, but the simple answer — which did not really come through loud and clear in their post(s) — is not who they are supposed to serve. Especially if it’s a first generation catalog.

We’ll take first generation catalogs first.

A first generation catalog is nothing more than an electronic version of a paper catalogue — and when you are in a rush to find and order a product, how good is that? With a paper catalogue, you flip to the index, hope the keywords you can think of are there, and hope the product on the page you flip to will do the job at a decent price. With an e-catalog, you are scanning through a keyword index or searching keywords and hoping the right product at the right price comes up. Not that useful, whether you are the buyer (who may or may not find what you want) or the supplier (who may or may not have their product found and requisitioned), especially when the buyer has to search each catalogue separately and will stop when the find the first acceptable product (which could be in another supplier’s catalog).

A second generation catalog is a bit better as it indexes all text, allows all supplier catalogs to be searched simultaneously, allows side-by-side comparison, single cart, and automatic PO splits across suppliers when a requisition is approved. But it’s still not perfect. The product might not be there. It might be out of stock. The price might not be right — or there may be no capability to communicate with the supplier for clarification on important details. The buyer is not served, and the supplier is not served.

Third generation catalogs are much better, and were supposed to solve the issues as they also allow punch-outs; real-time federated search across internal, supplier, and punch-out catalogs; communication; RFX; preferred and contract items to be weighted or forced to the top of the listing; budget integration; and visual guilt features, to make sure a buyer buys what should be bought when and how it should be bought. This helps Procurement help buyers buy on-contract items on-contract and steer purchases to preferred suppliers. And it helps suppliers because they know if they have a contract or are preferred, buyers will be guided to them.

But it doesn’t serve either party if the need isn’t served by an on-contract item in stock at a preferred supplier, because the buy might not be appropriate for catalogs in the first place. If the buyer buys an overpriced item via punch-out, that doesn’t help Procurement. And if the buyer buys the wrong product from the supplier when there was a better one, the supplier gets a bad rap and may not be bought from again.

The problem is catalogs, like GPOs, are presented as the be-all, end-all tail-spend management solution when, in reality, tail spend (as pointed out in Sourcing Innovation’s recent paper on An Introduction to Tail Spend — and why you need a technology-based solution, tail-spend is a very complex beast that is often only suitably served by a mix of catalog, RFX, and auction buys, often optimization-backed, with the solution varying with market conditions and particularities of the need.

And a catalog will never tell you when it is the right — or wrong solution. So unless it’s only a part of a full tail-spend suite, with expert guidance (via expert programmed workflows), it won’t even come close to serving either party. Remember that before buying a “new and improved” e-Catalog solution.

Key Questions When Selecting a Multi-Criteria Supplier Sustainability Monitoring Solution

In our last post on why Supply Risk Management Can Not Be Siloed, we noted that the average organization was not properly managing risk, and this was not only costing the organization time and money, but putting it at significant risk. We noted that there were a number of reasons for this — which included a lack of time, resources, and even immediacy — but the biggest reason was because there is a lack of cohesion in the fragmented risk management approach employed by many organizations. But we also noted that there was something the organization could do, namely, take a holistic approach to sustainable risk management.

In a holistic approach to sustainable risk management, risk management is centralized through a Centre of Excellence (CoE) that holistically manages risk for the entire organization. This CoE will put together policies and procedures that not only ensure that

  • every supplier is covered
  • on all relevant dimensions
  • but not on irrelevant dimensions
  • without any duplication of effort

but also ensures that

    • there are no false positives in the risk assessment and
    • there are no false negatives

Part of these procedures will include regular monitoring for risk and the regular re-examination of risk and sustainability of organizational suppliers and potential suppliers. And best practice will dictate that part of this monitoring and review will be automated by a multi-criteria supplier sustainability monitoring solution and supported by a provider that specializes in this type of platform as the monitoring will need to be maintained and adjusted as new data sources become available, old data sources go offline, and the depth of data changes over time.

But how do you select a good provider, and, most importantly, how do you select a good platform to meet your multi-criteria sustainability needs? The first thing you do is understand what makes a good platform and what the platform needs to do to take away your risk and sustainability management and your risk and sustainability monitoring pain.

To help you achieve this goal, the doctor recommends that you download Sourcing Innovation’s latest white paper on 5 Essential Criteria for Selecting a Supplier Sustainability & Risk Monitoring Solution, sponsored by Ecovadis, that will help you understand what a good sustainability and risk monitoring solution needs to do, not just what features or functions need to be in the brochure.

What is ARM, and why should I care?

Today’s guest post is from Peter Portanova, a Senior Project Analyst for Source One Management Services that specializes in the marketing spend category decision support for clients seeking to enhance their strategic marketing efforts and drive valuable agency relationships.

Relationships. Is there any institution more complex known to humanity? Whether between a group of people, or between a group of businesses, relationships are complex, messy, and often times, toxic. As businesses struggle to remain relevant in a volatile and fast-moving environment, the push to do more with less has never been so evident. In a well-circulated and often-rebuffed article from 2015 titled “Your Agency Hates You and You Don’t Even Know It“, the author attempts to identify the reasons relationships seem to fail (that is, if you are an agency and you are comfortable placing the majority of the blame on your client).

Consider the state of the marketing and advertising industry in 2015. Buzzwords like “Reviewmaggedon” and “Mediapalooza” dominated headlines, and the year ended with marketers parading through the streets when Pepsi decentralized their marketing procurement team. Fortunately, Pepsi’s decision does not indicate a trend, and an ANA survey to marketers reaffirms the value of procurement in the marketing process. To summarize the findings, many executives see value in procurements process, as long as it does not hinder the fluidity marketers require. However, the overarching question remains: How does procurement adapt their process to become more accepted by marketing stakeholders?

Enter, Agency Relationship Management, or ARM for short. Like Supplier Relationship Management (“SRM”) ARM works on the client’s behalf to ensure a fair and equitable relationship. There are many processes and services that fall under the umbrella of ARM, and procurement is well tooled to operate simply as a mediator, or as the manager of a full sourcing event. The ultimate goal of an ARM program is to enhance the relationship between a client and agency, and to ensure that expectations are clearly communicated and campaigns are integrated and executed seamlessly. Whether working with an internal team or an external third party, ARM programs ensure a best-in-class contract, and enable the client and agency to react swiftly when the market shifts.

“My relationship is great!” “My agency does everything for me!” “My agency does nothing!” “My agency is terrible!” Relationships between clients and agencies exist on a spectrum from love to hate, and require regular maintenance to remain viable. Consider a married couple in their “honeymoon phase,” believing all is well and that the relationship will last forever, or consider the alternate feelings of disappointment and anger. ARM exists as the marriage counselor during rough patches, OR as the open lines of communication and responsiveness when everyone is happy. Simply believing your relationship is successful now, and therefore does not require proactive measures can be detrimental over time, and may lead to the ultimate dissolution of the union (which is expensive, time consuming, and disruptive).

Aside from mediating and working as the communicator, ARM is hugely useful is evaluating current relationships, identifying future opportunities, ensuring competitive rates, and developing a scope of work that is fair and equitable. While relationship management might connote issues, the beauty of ARM is that is works to ensure issues seldom arise due preventative and proactive measures undertaken to ensure the constant delivery of value. Whether there is concern over scope, rates, or capabilities, the objectivity of a third-party outside of marketing works to alleviate to concerns. Furthermore, as noted by the ANA, having a separate business unit working on negotiations is hugely beneficial, and allows those engaging in tactical work to remain focused.

Always remember that relationships are mendable. Unless seriously damaged with fundamental issues, replacing an agency partnership should be a last resort. While there are certainly benefits in doing so, alternative solutions should be the first consideration. A full search is time and labor intensive, and hugely disruptive to current operations. Typically, issues can be resolved through the rotation of resources, or the assignment of new teams to provide additional benefits. Similar drawbacks exist for agencies, which are forced to dedicate additional resources, which may distract from the execution of tactical work. By having an ARM team and process in place, the process is far more manageable, and can begin with simply evaluating the relationship and identifying both positive and negative aspects. After such an evaluation, a process for resolution can be created, ranging in both complexity and extensiveness.

An internal department is a viable solution is for managing relationships, but additional benefit is available through the utilization of a third party. Market data concerning rates and contract terms allow for a greater advantage in negotiations, and flexibility in resources ensures clear communication leading to a rapid resolution. Whether establishing an internal department, or looking for a wholly-outsourced solution Source One’s expertise and experience are ready to assist you in the implementation of your ARM program.

Thanks, Peter.

Don’t Confuse Centralized Sourcing with a Centralized Sourcing Model

As more Procurement organizations begin to mature, it’s imperative that they revisit this new classic SI post from three years ago as confusion on this subject can lead to poor decisions.

An article over in S&DC Executive on The Four Vs of Fixing a Decentralized Procurement Model noted that implementing a centralized model from nothing is no mean feat and then presented the Four Vs” as a good starting point to begin their path forward to centralization of selected spend categories. Centralization of spend is a necessary step on the path to a centralized sourcing model, but that’s all it is – a step.

In order to have a centralized sourcing model, you have to centralized:

  • Talent,

    all of the Sourcing and Supply Management Personnel have to be in the same business unit

  • Technology, and

    all of the operations, even if they are decentralized all over the world, need to run on a common base technology platform

  • Transition,

    all of the processes need to be migrated to common sourcing and supply management processes, with local sourcing only taking place on categories that are truly local (otherwise, sourcing should be center led)

Now, when you are transitioning processes, you should start with sourcing and procurement, as this one-two punch will give you the biggest bang for your buck. The application of good advanced sourcing techniques to categories never sourced this way, or to significantly larger spend volumes, will typically identify savings opportunities in the 10% to 12% range. Then, good procurement systems will make sure that the savings are captured by preventing maverick spend (if the spend has to go through the system and appropriate rules are in place) and making sure the invoices match the POs which will need to match the contracted rates.

And the first step in a good sourcing process is spend analysis, which, if you want to get it right, does require:

  • Visibility,

    into all of the spend in the category being sourced

  • Variance,

    on the spend between sites (which will give you a quick estimate of savings potential)

  • Velocity, and

    to savings which results by choosing categories where contracts are expiring or have expired and where there will be little resistance

  • Value.

    generated from the process in a way that can be measured, tracked, and reported to the CFO.

The four V’s covered in the article are indeed a good starting point on your journey to centralized the sourcing process, but that’s just one aspect of transition, and it doesn’t even address technology or talent, two key factors in the centralization of a Supply Management function.

How Not to Excel at Forecasting

This post originally ran four years ago. But since a critical mistake is still being made, it’s time for a repost.

How Not to Excel at Forecasting?

Simply put, use Microsoft Excel. It’s appalling that a survey by ToolsGroup and the Global Market Development Centre (GDMC) found that even though two-thirds of companies in the consumer goods supply chain consider demand volatility and forecast accuracy a high businesses priority, half still rely on Excel spreadsheets for forecasting.

Relying on Excel for forecasting is like relying on:


  • a Longship to get you across the Atlantic

  • your first guess on Let’s Make a Deal to be the right one

  • a shareholder proxy getting on the ballot at a Fortune 500

  • Florida surviving a hurricane season without any major city suffering damage

  • the price of fuel going down and staying down for an upcoming series of spot buys

  • natural resource supply to be consistent and predictable year-over-year

  • a flip of a fair coin to come up heads seven times in a row

Now, it’s true that:


  • the Vikings did make it across the Atlantic in a Longship, but a single storm could sink it

  • the first door you pick, with one-in-three odds, could be the right one, but the odds are actually twice as good if you switch

  • an activist shareholder can sometimes get a proxy on the ballot if he or she has enough time and money, but as pointed out by John Gillespie and David Zweig in Money for Nothing (How the Failure of Corporate Boards is Ruining American Business and Costing Us Trillions), examples are few and far between

  • even though no storms made landfall in Florida in 2011, this is Not a common occurrence

  • gas prices did consistently drop in the USA between September 2008 and December 2008, but have been otherwise steadily rising for the last five years

  • in some years the rice, sugar, and corn crops are almost the same as in the previous year, but given the increase in hurricanes, tsunamis, droughts, and other natural disasters in recent years, this is not a common occurrence

  • yes, heads can come up seven times in a row when flipping a fair coin, but the chances of this happening are less than 1%

In other words, you can forecast with Microsoft Excel, but your chances of doing well, especially given that 90% of spreadsheets have non-trivial errors (and collectively cost enterprises billions, as Fidelity and Fannie Mae found out), are (vanishingly) small (as the complexity of the forecast increases). One has to remember that there’s no intelligence behind a spreadsheet and they are just a source of peril that can cost your organization millions without anyone noticing.