Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Planes, Trains, and Automobiles — Which is the Safest Way to Travel?

Even though flying is still believed to be the safest mode of travel, with the death risk for passengers of commercial airlines being one in forty-five million flights, compared to the risk of dying in a train crash being one in 156,169, trains could become the safest way to travel, especially if some of the recent innovations to railroad safety are universally implemented.

Specially equipped freight cars pass over railroad tracks as sensors gather multiple data points on their condition. Rail-side detectors scan passing rail cars to evaluate their integrity. Trackside ultrasonic technology identifies internal flaws in passing wheels. These are just a few of the new technologies that have been developed to ensure rail security and prevent accidents, as chronicled in this recent article over on Inbound Logistics.

Widespread adoption of these, and other, safety technologies could result in 2012, which was the safest year ever in the United States for rail according to the AAR (Association of American Railroads), being the 10th most safest year by 2022 and make accidents a rarer occurrence than they are in aviation. According to the FRA (Federal Railroad Administration) Office of Safety Analysis, there were 10,918 rail incidents in 2012, of which 662 were fatal. Incidents include train accidents, highway-rail incidents, and other incidents. The total number of train accidents were 1,743, of which 5 were fatal. The primary causes were human factors (656), track defects (577), and equipment defects (205) with signal defects and miscellaneous causes accounting for the remaining (305) accidents. More automation and safety systems can eliminate the amount of human involvement required, greatly reducing the number of accidents due to human factors, and better monitoring systems would detect the vast majority of track, signal, and equipment failures before they led to incidents. After all, there’s a finite amount of track (of 138,565 miles in the US), a finite number of crossings, and a finite number of trains on those tracks, which can only be in one location at any time. Good automated control systems can eliminate crossing and switching incidents and head-on collisions, and better monitoring that detects 98%+ of defects before they lead to accidents will reduce the accident rate, at least on track, by 98%. The highway crossings will still be an issue, especially if a driver is dumb enough to race the lights, but more crossing bars will help there as well. It might be the case that highway crossings prevent train travel from ever being safer than airline travel, statistically speaking, but there’s no reason that rail (only) incidents can’t be all but eliminated with better technology.

Especially now that there is the incentive to do so! As the Inbound Logistics article on where safety and innovation converge points out, railroads are experiencing a competitive resurgence as an energy-efficient freight transportation option, and this means a lot of money is being pumped into rail, and this amount will increase as time goes on as operating efficiencies can make rail more competitive than truck for trips as short as 500 miles! In addition, with the increasing densification of (mega) cities, and (mega) regions that cluster multiple (mega) cities, it will soon be that the only option left for efficient transport of people will be high-speed rail. North America will have no choice but to bite the bullet and build high-speed rail systems in order to maintain its geographic competitiveness, or the best and brightest from its talent pool will migrate to growing (mega) cities and (mega) regions in Europe and Asia, especially in the finance and technology industries where time is money and people can’t afford to sit in traffic for three or four hours a day (as the net result is a complete sacrifice of their personal life).

And if railroads don’t keep up with safety improvements on their own, because of the money involved, legislation will eventually help them along. For example, legislation passed in 2008 requires that all railroads implement positive train control (PTC) technology on main lines used to transport passengers and toxic-by-inhalation material by 2015. This technology, designed to automatically stop or slow a train before certain types of accidents occur, should go a long way towards reducing fatal accidents.

But it sounds like legislation isn’t required, as the rail industry is already pushing for stricter safety standards than the government requires. One example, as outlined in the Inbound Logistics article, is that the AAR Tank Car Control Committee has already petitioned the US Department of Transportation Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) to adopt higher standards for DOT-111 tank cars carrying packaging group type I and type II commodities (which include explosive liquids such as crude oil and ethanol).

In other words, while the rail industry has a way to go, one day rail could be as safe, or safer, than air. Let’s hope it gets there because the rails are again The Road to Riches. The various forms of the automobile may have temporarily overshadowed them, but their glory days have returned.

Good SaaS vs. Bad SaaS

A recent post over on Richard Anson’s blog on “11 Crucial Tactics for SaaS Pricing”, while written for new SaaS vendors who need to know how to price their solutions, did a great job of helping to point out some of the key elements of a good SaaS solution sales process vs. a bad SaaS solution sales process as well as some key elements of a good SaaS solution from a customer’s perspective vs. a bad SaaS solution from a customer’s perspective.

In particular, it focusses in on some of the key non-functional characteristics that should be examined in your SaaS purchase process. These non-functional characteristics can easily be summarized in a quick side-by-side comparison of good SaaS vs. bad SaaS.

 

Good SaaS Bad SaaS
Value-based Cost-based
ROI-justification Process Improvement
Business Case Justification Potential Manpower Reduction
Priced According to Company Size and Utilization One Price Fits All
Competitively Priced Priced Out of the Ballpark

 

In other words, if the SaaS solution is good, it will be competitively priced, and priced according to your company size and intended utilization, come with a business case justification, deliver a proven ROI, and clearly deliver ongoing value.

And if a SaaS solution is bad (for you), it will be priced out of the ball-park with respect to its competition (and be either too expensive to deliver value or too cheap for the company to sustain over the long term, which will lead either to the provider’s failure or substantial price increases at contract renewal time), have little in the way of a solid business case justification, or have a poor ROI over the short and/or long term. SaaS is more than features, functionality, hands-off management, and a cool web experience — it’s about delivering value to your bottom line.

For insights on how to cost out the TCO of a SaaS solution, and compare that TCO to an installed solution, see SI’s classic post on Uncovering the True Cost of On-Premise Sourcing & Procurement Software. For insights on what constitutes a good SaaS contract, see SI’s classic posts on SaaS Contractual Considerations (Part I and Part II). And remember, as per SI’s recent post on Maximizing ROI from Technology, it doesn’t matter how strategic the IT Vendor is, it only matters how strategic the solution they offer is.

Why Big Brains Will Beat Big Data in Procurement


Today’s guest post is from Ryann Kahn, Marketing and Communications Manager at Source One Management Services.

Two weeks ago, the Sourcing Innovation blog published an article about how the three cognitive traps stifle global innovation. I couldn’t help but think about how the same points could be made in procurement: data (though usually we don’t have Big Data) can help overcome some common issues, but ultimately Big Brains are more important and effective at the same job.

Take a procurement sourcing project for example.

The commonly used traditional three-bid process is data driven. It implies that if you collect enough (i.e. three pieces of) data, then you are making a good decision. Now, by collecting three bids, you know you are not getting the worst price and service out there and you are encouraging some competition. But without category expertise or a strategic process in place, can you really consider the data alone enough to justify that you have made a wise and innovative decision? Data != strategic sourcing.

But the data itself can often lead to the confirmation bias that the doctor referenced previously. Was your RFP template (or software solution) structured in a way that drove you to the conclusion that you already had envisioned? For example, if you want to remain with your local incumbent supplier, does your scorecard penalize suppliers for not having a location near you? Did you only request pricing on a specific product, which you knew your preferred supplier had the best (or only) price available? Confirmation bias in the sourcing world is real and common. Many companies effectively eliminate competition with better solutions because of the way they structure their questions.

By contrast, a true strategic sourcing process uses data in a Big Brain process.

The first step is a spend analysis of data from contracts, supplier invoices, P-Cards, supplier reports, POs, and more. (That’s a lot of data.) Then we look at market intelligence, historical trending, new products or process enhancements and benchmark data. (Now that’s Big Data!) All of this information is pulled, assessed, and analyzed. But the data alone does not give a full picture of a company’s spend. It takes the “curious, open mind” to uncover the whole story. Data may suggest inadequacies, but only through more in-depth research and thorough interviews with stakeholders and end users will one be able to identify problems and usage requirements.

The next step of the strategic sourcing process is the sourcing strategy. Again, it begins with data collection to cast a wide net of suppliers and determine their capabilities. But the bulk of the work in this stage belongs to the Big Brain: creating the supplier strategy, envisioning an RFx strategy, and planning for an execution strategy.

Even if procurement evolves to join the Big Data bandwagon, data will never be able to replace a human category expert. A category expert comes armed with nuanced knowledge of market trends, characteristics, players, and history, and uses analytical skills to apply that to plain data. Or, as the HBR article says, “When we look at markets different from our own we often have little information”. An expert who has been intimately involved with sourcing a category for years will be able to achieve better results than a novice armed with data, or the most powerful e-sourcing tool, any day.

In the final phases of the strategic sourcing process, implementation and compliance, it is entirely the work of a Big Brain. Experts must ensure that a company is actually achieving the results that were identified in the earlier phases in terms of savings and level of service. These experts may use tools to help collect the data to support the process, but the tools themselves don’t do an adequate job of capturing the data that is important to the unique organizational situation.

Data can, and does, help make good sourcing decisions, but ultimately it’s the Big Brains that lead the way. A Big Brain will always be needed to strategically apply the data (big or small), and be the “curious, open-minded researcher” to make a good decision.

Thanks, Ryann.

MarketMaker4: The Mid-Market’s Market Making Mezzanine

Some of you might say the e-Sourcing space is too crowded. And that certainly was the case in the mid-zeroes — platforms here, platforms there, platforms platforms everywhere. But then came the acquisition frenzy where mid-sized players swallowed smaller players and start-ups before getting swallowed up in turn by the dominant players who, in the last couple of years, themselves were swallowed up by the massive enterprise software providers. As a result, there is an opportunity, especially in the NA (North American) market for a couple of new players – provided, of course, that such players bring new and innovative solutions to the table (that address the needs of a considerable market segment).

As a result, even though the EU (European Union) vendors are starting to enter the sourcing market in a big(ger) way in NA, there is still an opportunity for someone new if they go about it the right way. So, despite the fact that many thought the market almost dead at the end of the zeroes, it was not completely crazy that a small team of e-Sourcing market veterans, including Mr. Alan Buxton who was the CTO of of Trading Partners back in their heyday, decided in 2011 to start a brand new e-Sourcing software start-up and build a new solution from scratch.

Two years later, MarketMaker4 is a strong offering for the mid-market that needs a new, modern, e-Sourcing solution. In particular, those mid-market companies that are late to the e-Sourcing game, those that are still relying on third parties to manage their sourcing events and are ready to bring those events in house, those that are trying to use ERP sourcing solutions, and those stuck on platforms that, due to acquisition, are stuck in integration limbo and haven’t been upgraded in a while.

So what is MarketMaker4? It’s a four-part sourcing solution that consists of:

  1. A modern e-Negotiation platform
    with a best of breed e-Auction and RFX solution
  2. with a built in supplier discovery engine
    built on the entire D&B database which is augmented with your own supplier database
  3. and market data indices that span commodities and currencies
    that let a buyer know current prices, historical trends, and relative market conditions (when the data is available)
  4. that is augmented with real-time product and sourcing support 24/7/365
    through online chat that connects all of the global support representatives around the world that are currently online.

The MarketMaker4 founders, who were involved in the space for over a decade and who worked for both software providers and services providers learned the following:

  1. While some companies will start with services to get going, these companies will eventually decide that pay per drink is expensive and look for software.
  2. The companies switching from services to software will typically select a best-of-breed software provider with little or no services or support beyond the product. As a result, due to limited sourcing and product knowledge on the in-house buying team, the product typically gets under-utilized and the company fails to achieve the ROI they expected.
  3. When the license expires, the company will typically revert back to a pay-per-drink, but limited to high-value categories, or put its faith in a good e-Procurement system, that will reduce maverick buying and, hopefully, with limited RFX capability, lead to better buying habits.
  4. But even if the company moves to a modern e-Procurement system, the company will typically have little insight into current prices or suppliers that they aren’t already buying from.

As a result, the team decided what was really needed for these types of companies was:

  • An e-Sourcing solution that was easy to use by the average buyer,
  • augmented with real-time support and guidance as new buyers get up to speed,
  • integrated with market index and currency index data (that could be linked into cost models), displayed in easy to understand graphical representations, that the buyer could use to understand current prices and likely trends, and
  • extended with a huge database of potential suppliers.

And that’s what they built. And in each component, they added some innovation to the mix.

  • The e-Auction product, which consumerizes the enterprise capability, is one of the most powerful on the market, with one of the most sophisticated, but yet easy to understand at a glance, interfaces out there.
  • While chat-based, they chose to build a support solution that connects all of their services and support personnel around the world who are currently available rather than use a call-center model. (And as they were just acquired by Xchanging, one of the big players in the Procurement market who are leaving MarketMaker4 as a stand-alone product and company, they now have a large network of support personnel around the world who speak multiple languages and can support their customers in their native language.)
  • Their market index solution is linked into the RFX/Auction module so that the buyer can see current component / raw material prices if there is a market index and can see current currency values as well as trends over the last year for every currency a supplier might bid in.
  • And they were the first e-Sourcing platform to integrate with D&B for the purposes of supplier discovery. Up until they did, most integrations were for risk data or data enrichment. As a result of their partnership and early efforts, they have one of the more powerful integrations and in addition to being able to search on name, location, etc. they can also filter on a variety of dimensions, including risk, size, diversity, etc. that even D&B can not filter on through their API.

MarketMaker4’s e-Auction product and supplier discovery products in particular are quite innovative, and SI will dive into them in more detail in the new year.

Still Not Convinced You Need Your Invoices Under Control?

Then, for starters, maybe you need to dwell on the following:

  • You’re probably overpaying your suppliers by 1%
    because that’s what an audit recovery firm expects you are, and why they make a killing auditing the 20% of suppliers that constitute 80% of your purchase volume, because it’s not that hard for these specialist firms to identify overpayments of 0.5% that typically generate 500K or more in a gain share agreement for a few man months of work (or less)
  • There’s a 2 in 3 chance you are being defrauded of 2% of your revenue
    and that you’ll never notice because you aren’t able to verify all invoices
  • Up to 75% of your AP-related overhead is completely wasted
    on manual data entry, supplier inquiries, and other tactical work that adds no value to Finance or Procurement
  • At least 1 in 10 invoices have an error
    which could be as simple as missing payment information or as involved as incorrect pricing on every line item for a 200 line Bill of Materials because the supplier forgot to apply the discount
  • One Million invoices requires at least 100 standard 4-drawer filing cabinets
    if you get 1 M invoices a year, after 10 years, that’s 1,000 filing cabinets — where are you going to store them all??? (With today’s Storage Area Network densities, that’s 1 SAN. Which can be replicated in 3 places at almost zero cost compared to the seven figure cost of replicating and storing 10 Million invoices at three different locations.)

SI could go on, but the reality is that, especially if your organization is growing, it really, really needs to get its invoices under control. To find out how it can do this, download SI’s new white paper on An End-to-End Invoice Automation Framework Benefits & Best Practices, sponsored by Nipendo. (Registration required.) Once you understand the requirements for a true end-to-end invoice automation solution, you will be well on your way.