Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Societal Damnation 39: Brand

Joan Jett may not give a damn ’bout her bad reputation, because when you’re a rock star (or a bad girl movie star), that’s actually a good thing, but when you are a consumer-driven corporation, these days, that’s about the worst damnation that can be thrust upon you. Brand disasters can far outweigh the average 10%+ decrease in shareholder value found by Hendricks & Singhal back in 2003. As per a recent study by CIRANO on Corporate Reputation, not only is there an 80% chance of a company losing at least 20% of its value at least once during a five year period, a major incident that significantly impacts the brand can wipe out over half of a company’s value overnight! Just look at what happened to BP after the Deepwater Horizon disaster. BP’s share price experienced a 52% drop in 50 days. Brand has went from that crazy ethereal concept unnecessarily promulgated by marketing mad men to that very real, critical, corporate requirement that must be maintained at all costs. Why?

Bad press results in backlash and consumer boycotts.

Any indication that your corporation is not the most sustainable, ethical, and corporately responsible organization on the planet can land your organization in the news. A minor supply chain infraction will result in a back page story that will be picked up and circulated by bloggers and activists until every concerned customer notices it and decides to write you angry letters and stop buying your products, resulting in that 10% decrease in sales and value found by Hendricks & Singhal while major supply chain oversights such as using suppliers who experienced preventable (man-made) disasters such as the factory collapse in Bangladesh (which should have not only been condemned but demolished) or the Philippines factory fire (in an overcrowded factory with no fire exit) that resulted in large death tolls will get your organization in front page headlines. This will result in significant backlash and widespread consumer boycott. If consumers will boycott a franchise for its beliefs (such as the boycott of Chick-fil-A for its beliefs on same sex marriage, as opposed to an actual refusal to serve the LGBT community), imagine the backlash and widespread boycotts your organization is going to get if child labour, slave labour, or human trafficking is found in your supply chain as a result of lack of oversight.

Bad decisions result in NGO and governmental investigations, fines, and seizures.

If your company gets caught holding the bag when someone finds melamine in the milk, diethylene glycol in the toothpaste, or BPA in the baby bottle plastic, it’s going to have every governmental agency with authority investigating, watching, and looking for ways to fine it even if it was a supplier two tiers down in the supply chain that did the dirty deed. And every NGO in the sustainability and Corporate Social Responsibility space doing a 360-degree supply chain review to find out what other skeletons are hiding in your closet and what snakes are lurking in your supply chain. So, not only will the government seize any products it finds that violate any environmental laws and fine you as much as it can under environmental, supply chain, and human rights / trafficking legislation, but the NGOs will be feeding the media that will in turn be feeding the consumer backlash and consumer boycotts. Losses will multiply quickly.

And both result in lost investor confidence and severe value drops!

As soon as something goes wrong, even if Procurement had absolutely nothing to do with it because a decision was made, or forced on it, by another department and/or it followed organizational protocol in supplier evaluation and selection, it is going to be blamed by the Investors and the Board who are going to be quite perturbed at the egg on the company’s, and their, face, and want someone else to point the blame at. Procurement’s going to be hung out to dry and if the situation is perceived to be bad enough, someone is going to be made a scapegoat that will be sacrificed in efforts to appease the masses.

It’s extreme damnation, and any Procurement department that wants even the slightest hope of being able to deflect the blame is going to have to go well above and beyond the call of duty in supplier evaluation, selection, monitoring, development, and, if all else fails, dismissal if it wants to survive any attack on the corporate brand intact.

Economic Damnation 3: (Un)Employment Rate

You’re probably asking why this is a Procurement damnation because, on the surface, it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with Procurement. And it’s a good question, because, on the surface, it has to do with the health of the overall economy, and nothing to do with the supply and demand (im)balances that drive day to day Procurement decisions, especially for those organizations still using the Kraljic (Portfolio) Purchasing Methodology.

And from that perspective, you would be right. But here’s the thing. The employment rate is related to the overall health of the economy and the amount of disposable income in the economy. The amount of overall disposable income combined with views on acceptable (consumer) debt levels determines how much consumers have to, and will, spend. The amount of spend determines overall demand for unnecessary and necessary products alike. (Yes, people need to eat and will always spend on food, as long as they can afford to, but if money is tight, “essentials” gets redefined to low-cost basic essentials and high-end food products like prepared meals, imported fruits and vegetables, and lobster are off the menu.) This, of course, determines demand, and demand determines not only your volume leverage in negotiation, but the overall profitability and health of the business, and, thus your overall budget. (Remember, no sale, no store.)

And even if you are in B2B sales, because you supply office supplies, MRO, technology, or equipment, you still depend on consumer spend because if consumers aren’t buying from your customers, your customers aren’t buying from you.

But that’s just one side of the equation. The other side is the talent side. If employment is high, people are buying, but talent, which you so desperately need to take your Procurement organization to the next level, is scarce, and your only option is to hire them away from a rival. This means a big bump in expected salary and lots of perks (and training, so bring that budget back or else) to get them to stay.

In other words, there is no good (un)employment situation for you because either unemployment is rising, which means falling demand and reduced leverage in negotiations and operating funds, or unemployment is falling, which means a lack of available talent and more funds dedicated to talent to keep the talent base you have.

In other words, the eternal damnation of (un)employment rate is not restricted to governments and economists. It affects Procurement quite heavily too.

Influential Damnation 98: Pundits / Futurists

Pundits and Futurists, who are one in the same, are the third influential damnation we are discussing, having already addressed consortiums and conferences. In order to see how these individuals are one in the same, we’ll start by reviewing standard definitions.

A pundit is defined as a person who offers to mass media their opinion or commentary on a particular subject area on which they appear to be knowledgeable.

A futurist is defined as a person who regularly makes predictions about the future, which is precisely what a pundit typically does when they offer their opinion and commentary to mass media!

Why are these individuals a damnation?

First of all, as clearly explained in Sourcing Innovation’s recent series on The “Future” of Procurement: What’s Old is Still Old! and An Expose of Procurement “Future” Trends: Digging Deep to Reveal the Truth, most of what those bloody futurists are proclaiming as the grand future of Procurement is old news, ongoing blues, or remanufactured shoes. Most of what they have been preaching from the worn out pulpit the last few years is the exact same message that their futurist predecessor were preaching one or more decades (or even centuries) ago!

Secondly, like the purveyors of apps, mobile, big data, and cloud, most of their messages are based in fear. If you don’t prepare for this today, you will go out of business tomorrow. If you don’t get this platform today, you will be relegated to the third world tomorrow. If you don’t jump on this process today, you will bleed red tomorrow.

Thirdly, when they get tired of preaching their tired old messages, they jump on the first vendor that gets a bad rap in the gossip chain as a result of an implementation that didn’t go perfectly, typically before figuring out why and who is really to blame. While it’s usually the case that the vendor didn’t do as good of a job managing the project as they should have done, it’s often the case that the customer didn’t heed the advice of the vendor and tried to rush ahead or do something themselves that was difficult without getting proper training and guidance. Enterprise technology, and especially enterprise technology that relies on a lot of integrations, data, advanced analytics, or sophisticated models, is always more involved and difficult to implement, integrate, and configure than you think it is and trying to do it yourself without an understanding of the nuances and gotchas is just asking for trouble. And while it is true that some vendors charge a lot for this service, it was the customer’s choice to select that vendor in the first place so the blame typically rests as much on the customer as on the vendor. And a pundit that just jumps all over the vendor without getting a full picture of what went wrong and how it could have been prevented doesn’t help anyone. We need to identify failings, their root causes, and solutions so that everyone can learn and move forward. Not encourage Perez Hiltons’ to invade our space.

Anyway, they’re a damnation and that’s why if the doctor is anything, he’s an anti-futurist.

Procurement 2020: We’re Off Track, But Can We Get Back on Track? Part II

In part one, which lamented our recent post that asked if we were on track for Procurement 2020 because the reality is that we are way, way, off track, we discussed business process sourcing, supply performance management (SPM) and supplier relationship management (SRM), and knowledge management, three of the six levers that need to be properly pulled to get Procurement on track for 2020, as identified by Hackett way back in 2008. In this post, we will discuss the other three levers and discuss whether or not there is still time to properly pull them.

Talent Management

While tomes can be written about this subject, of all of the fixes that are required, this is the easiest. All one has to do to get things back on track is to reinstate the training budget, give the team the time to get and take training, give Procurement the resources it needs to attract and retain top talent, and sit back while the talent takes your Procurement up a notch. That’s it. It really is easy-peasy. You don’t even need the big red button!

Next Level Strategic Sourcing

This is also an easy fix. Get a true next generation sourcing platform designed for complex tenders that can support true strategic sourcing decision optimization and next level sourcing, get training on what next level sourcing is, and just do it. For more information on what this is, check out Sourcing Innovation’s paper on Optimization: What Comes Next and its upcoming paper on Complex Sourcing, being released on October 7th.

New Product Development & Introduction

Once processes are under control, knowledge is captured and maintained, talent is where it needs to be, platforms are in place, and next level sourcing processes have been instituted, Procurement is going to get results and respect. When it is able to demonstrate to Engineering how involving it earlier in the process will save money and increase value, it will get invited to the table earlier in the process and will eventually be asked to consult and provide guidance on every NPD/NPI opportunity. It will help lead the organization into new markets, rather than just scrambling to make the best of the poor situation it is placed in. And it will be able to do this because it will already have collected the market knowledge, already have cost model baselines that it can use to create should-cost models, already know where to look for the market intelligence to predict the costs associated with different options, and so on.

In other words, we can get back on track, but only if some major changes happen.

  1. Talent needs to come first.
  2. Knowledge needs to be captured.
  3. Platforms and processes need to be in place to support purchasing and capture spend.
  4. Suppliers need to be engaged, monitored, and developed.
  5. Sourcing needs to be taken up a notch.

This is all feasible with today’s knowledge and today’s platforms, and the vision can be realized, but a serious commitment has to be made by the organization which also has to stop focusing on, and more importantly, measuring Procurement on savings and savings alone. It’s not cost reduction. It’s cost avoidance and management. It’s knowing that going too far to save a penny today will cost a pound tomorrow. It’s making the best overall decision to not lower costs now at the expense of being locked into higher costs for for years to come when the organization should be investing in suppliers and platforms that will generate additional value for the organization down the road.

Will it happen? In a few, forward thinking organizations, yes. In the average organization still dancing to the drum of Wall Street, probably not. And it’s a shame. But as global market situations worsen and short-sighted companies begin to fail, far-sighted companies, where Procurement is encouraged to take a longer term view, will gain market share and those that re-institue long term five and ten year plans will prosper the most. While the state of affairs won’t be what they should when we reach 2020, maybe 2030 will see an improvement (and Procurement optometrists will have to adjust their vision scales).

Procurement 2020: We’re Off Track, But Can We Get Back on Track? Part I

As per our recent post that asked if we were on track for Procurement 2020, we’re off track. Way off track. So far off track that we can’t even see which direction the track was in.

Hackett told us way back in 2008 what we needed to do to get where we needed to be, but most Procurement organizations are still nowhere close to where they should be, even though most of it is easy-peasy.

Business Process Sourcing

This is easy to get under control, it just requires some good planning and process mapping. Specifically, an organization has to map all of its processes, define the knowledge-centric strategic aspects versus the manual-processing tactical aspects, and then figure out the benefit of each part of the process with respect to the cost.

If the benefit is low, the cost is high, and the process is tactical, it is a prime candidate for outsourcing. If the cost is low, the benefit is high, and the process is knowledge-centric, the process is a poor candidate for outsourcing. Organizations need to maintain their knowledge and strategic advantages and outsource that which brings them no benefit when performed internally.

An organization that takes the time to map its processes and understand them can find the right candidates for outsourcing and manage them appropriately.

Supply Performance Management (SPM) & Supplier Relationship Management (SRM)

While this was a major oversight in first generation Sourcing systems, this is a common module in second generation Sourcing systems and over the past few years a number of expert consultancies and solution vendors have come on the scene that can help you get your SPM and SRM processes up to snuff. They have n-step processes that can be used to help you get an understanding of where you are on the SPM and SRM maturity curves, what you can do to get better, and how you can figure out how you compare to the market average and the best-in-class.

In addition, there is a lot more information on SPM and SRM, what it is, how to do it, and the importance of it to your supply chain on the various blogs and publications then there was a decade ago. Those who seek out and make use of this information can progress well ahead of the curve. (And a couple of overviews will be made freely available to SI readers over the next month or so as part of a larger offering … stay tuned.)

Knowledge Management

A decade ago, it was unheard of to have more than half of spend under management, and if you said that one day you’d have integrated spend data, you risked being put in an asylum. However, with modern platforms that provide an organization with the ability to not only push all payments through a common platform, but all purchases through a common platform that supports integrated internal and external catalogues — whether they be cXML punch-out, EDI, flat-file, data-base driven, or custom entries — things have changed. When all requisitions and purchases can go through one platform, all spend gets in one database, and the organization has visibility into all of its spend and can plot a course to get the majority of its spend under management.

In other words, we can return the engine to the tracks, but an effort will have to be made to do so. How much of an effort? Stay tuned for Part II.