Category Archives: Market Intelligence

2 in 5 Fleet Owners Suspect Fuel Invoice Errors. What About the Other 3?

A recent article over on TruckingInfo that wanted to know if you are Staying On Top of Your Fuel Invoices noted that only 40% of respondents to a recent survey by FuelQuest suspected errors in their fuel invoices. SI’s question is, what about the other 60%?

According to the article, unaddressed, bulk fuel invoice error rates tend to hover around 25%, but some companies have rates as high as 55%. This is due to complex fuel and freight contracts as well as manual or sample-based reconciliation processes. This is because they lack the processes and technologies to insure complete, consistent, and effective invoice matching and review.

Furthermore, the lack of proper processes and technologies results in the business impact from invoicing errors including overpayments, increased operational costs, and lost trust in suppliers being significantly underestimated. If a large fleet company is consistently being over billed 3 cents/gallon, that’s up to $12 of over-billing on every fill up and up to $2,000 a year of over-billing for every 18 wheeler (with an older model getting an average of only 5 mpg). If you have 50 trucks in your fleet, that’s an over-billing at a rate of 100K/year until it is detected. And how much will be recovered?

Even if you are a 3PL/Logistics Carrier you need end-to-end invoice automation, m-way matching, and exception-based management. Otherwise, you don’t know how much money is being needlessly burned by your fleet.

Will Increased Cargo Theft be the Next Impact of MAP-21?

MAP-21, the short-hand for Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act, took effect October 1 of last year (and shortly thereafter we asked if your supply chain was compliant in Part I and Part II). This 584 page monstrosity had ramifications across your transportation-based supply chain and included, among other things, in the Commercial Motor Vehicle Safety Enhancement Act: Subtitle 1, section 32918, a requirement that each broker subject to the requirements of this section shall provide financial security of $75,000 for purposes of this subsection, regardless of the number of branch offices or sales agents of the broker, a seven-fold increase for the average small carrier.

As a result of this requirement, we asked if the act should be more accurately renamed RIP-21 as the act led to the forced closure of over 9,800 freight transport brokerages that were unable to put up the significantly increased bond. Overnight, 46% of independent brokers disappeared! Some eventually came up with the bond and reopened, but the number of independent brokers is down 40% year over year.

So what does this have to do with increased cargo theft? One of the fastest growing forms of cargo-theft is deceptive / fictitious pick-ups. The scheme, as described in an AP article last year on how “thieves pose as truckers to steal huge cargo loads”, works as follows.

 


Thieves assume the identity of a trucking company, often by reactivating a dormant Department of Transportation carrier number from a government website for as little as $300. That lets them pretend to be a long-established firm with a seemingly good safety record. The fraud often includes paperwork such as insurance policies, fake driver’s licenses and other documents.


Then the con artists offer low bids to freight brokers who handle shipping for numerous companies. When the truckers show up at a company, everything seems legitimate. But once driven away, the goods are never seen again.

And now thieves have over 9,000 cargo companies, many of whom with good safety records, to work with. Now more than ever, you need to keep a close eye on your cargo on American soil, or you may not see it again! Makes you wonder just who MAP-21 is for, eh?

Big Data = Big Mistake

FT.com recently published a great article on Big Data that asked Are We Making a Big Mistake which contains the best description SI has seen yet for Big Data: Big Mistake!

Why? Because, even though there are times we might want correlation to be causation (because then we could put an end to IE once and for all), it is not, never was, and never will be. never, Ever, EVER!* And, as pointed out in the article, just because a correlation algorithm works great for predicting trends, such as the spread of influenza, three years in a row, this doesn’t mean it’s going to work well the fourth year. Randomly identified statistical patterns in data are just that — randomly identified statistical patterns in data.

The Google example in the article is a huge example of how big data can fail in a massive, embarrassing way. In Nature 457, published 19 February 2009, Google published a paper entitled detecting influenza epidemics using search engine query data that detailed how they were able to track the spread of influenza across the US more quickly than the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC). Using a big data algorithm that detected a correlation between what people searched for and and whether they had flu systems, Google was apparently able to track the spread of influenza with only a day’s delay, compared to the week or more it took the CDC to assemble a picture based on reports from doctors’. This theory free approach worked for four years, and then failed spectacularly in 2013 when it drastically over-estimated peak flu levels, as chronicled in this article on When Google Got Flu Wrong over on Nature.com.

To put the issue of correlation vs causation into terms everyone can understand, if correlation was causation, Microsoft would be on trial as an accomplice to felony murder in every state in the United States, since the declining usage of internet explorer directly correlates with the declining murder rate in the US:

In other words, if correlation was causation, then using Internet Explorer invokes violent tendencies which leads to murder, and its continued existence is criminal.**

This is the problem with big data today. Everyone is using it to try and detect potentially useful correlations, instead of trying to support or disprove useful, actionable, theories. Why? Because, as the FT.com article states, figuring out what causes what is hard, and some would even claim it to be impossible.

Correlation might work in the short term, as it did for Google that was able to predict the spread of influenza for a few years, but it always fails in the long term. And if you have no idea what is behind a correlation, you have no idea what might cause that correlation to break down. Just like a stock market trading algorithm, it might work for a year, a month, a week, a day, or a minute. You just don’t know.

That’s why relying on correlation-based big-data algorithms is a big mistake. While they will give you interesting patterns to examine, relying on them will lead you down a dark and winding road that leads to the edge of a deep canyon (that you are aren’t going to see until you fall in). Unless you can come up with a reasonable theory and support it with the data, it’s just an interesting pattern — and you should continue on your merry way until you find an interesting pattern you can actually explain unless you too want to end up with egg on your face.

That’s why Sourcing Innovation Still Prefers Big Brains to Big Data, and likely always will. We might be slaves to the corporations in the continuum, but that doesn’t mean we have to be slaves to stupidity.

* Everyone should know by now that correlation is not causation given that Pinky and the Brain gave you all a great Lesson in Statistics six years ago (when they were still in the employ of a certain Burlington sourcing provider …)

** It’s distribution was criminal for a while when Microsoft tried to create a browser monopoly by embedding it in the Operating System in a way that led Windows users to believe there was no other choice, as monopolies are illegal in many countries, but, I’m sorry to say, the continued existence of IE is not criminal, just sad and frustrating.

Too Many Marketing Fingers in the Procurement Pie? And if You Need Help, Get It.

Let’s face it. If Marketing hasn’t let you put your fingers in the Marketing Procurement Pie, then you don’t have any experience executing and managing Marketing and Agency projects in your organization. Furthermore, given the more traditional role of Procurement and Supply Management, all of the training and expertise that has been imparted to you has probably focussed on direct and indirect materials management, and not ephemeral creative services.

If you want to be taken seriously, you have to not only be an expert in your function, but very knowledgeable in the Marketing function as well. You have to know their process, KPIs, and lingo and speak it like a pro. Otherwise, you look like a n00b in a l33tsp34k forum, and you won’t be taken seriously.

If you don’t make the cut, then you better bring in help, get up to snuff, and make sure you are putting your best foot forward before taking on your first Marketing Procurement project. As per our previous post in this series, you will be put on probation and likely only get one chance to succeed. Fail on even one task, and you’ll be blamed for everything and not allowed back in until there is a change in leadership. (It’s harsh, but you need to remember where the biggest concentration of egos typically are outside of the C-Suite.)

A third-party experienced in marketing procurement can not only help you understand the lingo, the relevant KPIs from a Marketing viewpoint, and the process customizations that are likely to get Marketing’s attention, but can also help you with:

  • Analysis & Benchmarking
    Chances are you are struggling getting enough clean and current data just to analyze and breakdown Marketing’s current spending — how are you going to benchmark the industry when Marketing never bothered to save bids and quotes from agencies that didn’t win the bid?
  • Subject Matter Expertise
    In addition to helping you with lingo, KPI definition, and process customization, they can also help you prepare the SoWs (Statements of Work), MSAs (Master Services Agreements), and Rate Card templates that make sense for your organization.
  • Time Bank
    Chances are that your team is already “time bankrupt” and barely has the time to do it’s job, yet alone learn another function. Bringing in the appropriate expertise not only minimizes the amount of time you need to identify the relevant subject matter, but to run the first project successfully as you will have an expert guiding you each step along the way. In addition, an outside third party can help you with the time-intensive data collection, cleansing, and benchmarking, freeing your team up to focus on what is important.

For more information on what a third party can bring to the table, check out Source One Management Services’ new white-paper on “Fueling Effective Collaboration: How Strategic Sourcing Delivers Results for Marketing Groups”. There aren’t many resources out there on Strategic Sourcing for Procurement (and SI knows this as it’s been talking about the importance thereof since it started back in 2006), so take advantage of what there is when something comes your way.

Too Many Marketing Fingers in the Procurement Pie? Then You Need To Run a Successful Event.

Once you get Marketing’s attention, you’ll probably be put on probation. Just because the CFO views you positively because you are helping the organization identify 5% to 20% savings annually in every category you touch, this doesn’t mean Marketing does — even if Marketing acknowledges that they need to get their spend under control and deliver more value. So you’ll be given permission to help with one or two “pilot” projects, and if you want to get on Marketing’s good side and take back the Procurement Pie, you will have to succeed and impress. This sounds easy enough, since you already have a standard five/six/seven step sourcing process which is generic enough to be applied everywhere, but, as always, the devil is in the details! Unlike most indirect purchases, it’s not as easy as searching a database or sending out a Request for Interest. Different agencies have different strengths, and different capabilities. Some can manage third party production houses, some can’t, for example. You need to have a firm understanding of what Marketing needs to help identify the right agencies. Second, evaluating an agency pitch is not like evaluating a physical product or manufacturing plant. What are you looking for, and what aren’t you looking for. Again, you need to have a firm understanding of what Marketing needs and a solid understanding of the lingo used by the Agencies as well as Marketing.

And you need to present Marketing with a clear picture of the process you are going to follow up-front and make sure that Marketing understands the process you are using and the critical importance of not circumventing the process, no matter how many times the incumbent Agency representative uses his direct-dial rolodex and asks someone in Marketing to let a requirement slide or just skip straight to the pitch. To get Marketing’s commitment, the process should look like it has been customized to them and use terminology they understand. If you need a good starting point, a recent paper by Source One Management Services, LLC. has a great process graphic you can use in their recent Marketing Insight Report on “Fueling Effective Collaboration: How Strategic Sourcing Delivers Results for Marketing Groups”.

Be sure to pay special attention to the following tasks:

  • Scope of Work (SoW) Definition
    This is what the agencies respond to and will determine not only whether or not the right agencies respond but how accurate their responses are.
  • Agency Identification
    You don’t want to send the SoW to an agency that you know is not appropriate or that would present a conflict of interest (especially if they are working with your direct competitor).
  • Market Assessment
    You have the RFI/RFP process down pat, but you are not necessarily experts in the Agency Marketplace or in what the standard rates are (or should be). This is where your benchmarking skills are really going to come into play.
  • Pitch Evaluation
    You have to make evaluations a qualitative and deliberative process on your terms, not a seat-of-the-pants decision in the Agency’s boardroom, which is what The Crazy Ones want you to do. You have to work with Marketing to build a quantitative scorecard that will be consistently applied to all pitches and select your finalist(s) based on the scorecard.
  • Negotiation, SoW, and Contract
    You know better than everyone that the way to avoid a contract dispute is to address and negotiate the issue up front because, as the saying goes, if you have to reach for the contract, then you’ve already lost the argument. This means leaving no “i” undotted, no “t” uncrossed, and no potential risk, no matter how small, unaddressed. This is your forte. You can make sure no stone remains uncovered, which greatly increases the chances of unblemished project success. (Which, to be honest, is often all Marketing really cares about.)You also know that you have to move Marketing away from just handing over the account and letting the agency run with the account to specifying detailed contracts, statement of work, budgets, and rate-cards as well as processes for selecting and managing third party vendors. You have to help Marketing make the agencies understand that while they can run free on creative within the boundaries specified by Marketing, print, production, etc. has to be managed according to guidelines and budgets.

While you won’t be thanked for your many successes, even though proper benchmarking and reporting will have you recognized by the CFO and CEO, you will get all the blame for any and all failures if you screw up just once.