Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Is the Emerging Share Economy Going to Disrupt Your Procurement Practices?

My Purchasing Center recently ran a very interesting article from a Senior Consultant of the Hackett Group on “Considerations for Supply Chain and Procurement in the Share Economy” that did a great job of explaining how the Share Economy is disrupting consumer purchasing patterns, and thus demand. However, in SI’s view, it did not do as great a job when it came time to make the case that it would disrupt daily Procurement operations.

In SI’s view, while the share economy may change the approach to certain categories, it’s not going to change fundamental procurement processes, methodologies, or the best practices that a leading Procurement organization brings to the table. We will elaborate on this, but first let’s review the main points of the My Purchasing Center article.

Noting that the share economy is projected to reach 3.5 Billion this year, with no signs of slowing down, the author of the My Purchasing Center article posits that these trends are going to have a significant, innovative, and potentially disruptive impact on Supply Chain and Procurement.

Zeroing on on services like Lyft and Airbnb where legions of people use their own car or living space as an on-demand taxi-service or rental, the author notes that this reduces the demand for additional cars and short-term rental properties. Similarly, services like zip-car, where people can rent on demand, not only reduce the demand for taxis and limos, but for second vehicles altogether, and thus reduce the total demand for vehicles from a manufacturer. This can effect economies of scale, and increase the cost of each vehicle produced if the demand drop is significant.

Then there is the emergence of 3D printing that is now to the point where even non-engineers can assemble a 3D printer, download some software, and produce their own goods at home. When the cost drops, demand for products that can be just as cheaply printed at home may drop but, more importantly, demand for products that can be printed in bulk just as cheaply as needed on the shop floor could wipe out entire categories for a supplier.

And these are valid observations. Demand is going to change, and shift, and it’s going to have an effect on what an organization can and can’t sell and on what a supplier can and can not profitably produce. No argument there.

But, unless it takes us back to a barter economy, it’s not going to have much of an impact on a good Procurement organization. The first thing a good Procurement organization does when it starts a sourcing event for a category is analyze the category in depth to determine the demand for the product or service, the criticality of the product or service, the strategic nature of supply relationships in the delivery of the product or service, etc. to determine what supply strategy is the most relevant, how the sourcing event should be conducted, what technology should be brought to bear, etc. If demand has dropped 50% in a category since it was last sourced and the economies of scale have diminished, then sourcing is going to shift from a lowest TCO approach to a strategic relationship where it can work with the supplier to take cost out of the production or delivery process or, if necessary, innovative a new design that will allow it to use lower cost materials and production / delivery processes. With or without a share economy, the mandate, and function, of Procurement is the same — source each category in the manner which generates the most value to the organization and procure each part or service against the identified strategy.

Do you think SI is missing something? If so, leave a comment.

SI Still Prefers Big Brains to Big Data, But If In Big Data You Trust …

… then trust fully and completely as the one thing that Big Data can do (besides sucking up a lot of your cash for a dubious ROI), when properly mined, is overcome the Three Cognitive Traps that Stifle Global Innovation.

How? We’ll get to that, but first let’s explain what the three cognitive traps are.

The Experience Bias

Referred to as the availability trap by the authors of the HBR post, it refers to the fact that many people assume an element of a culture that they, and their peers, are familiar with is representative of that culture. The example given by the authors is that Brits see Chicken Tikka Masala as representative of typical indian cuisine as that is what is common in the British curry houses. Similarly, most North Americans think that fried rice and egg rolls are representative of typical Chinese cuisine, as that is what comes with just about every combination plate in every Chinese restaurant. In both cases, this is not true.

Similarly, in the business world, most executives in the developed world believe that the urban, affluent, rapidly growing middle class is representative of the population of a market in a developing country they are going after. The urban middle class is only a small percentage of the population in many developing countries, and not representative of the market as a whole.

The Confirmation Bias

The confirmation bias is when we use ambiguous data as clinching evidence of our hypothesis. The example given by the authors was how a European multinational, despite being told by their Indian salesforce that their building material product line was over-engineered for much of the Indian market, refused to listen (believing that the local salespeople just did not have the required skills to sell the product) and sustained years of losses, including two country CEOs, before it saw the error of its ways. Why did this happen? Early on, a global product executive visited India and happened to be present when a single, stellar, salesperson encountered a high-value customer, patiently demonstrated each and every superior product feature, and, after a significant amount of time, finally made the sale. This one data point of success was focussed on despite the fact that there were countless data points of failure.

The Variance Bias

The variance bias (known to psychologists as out-group homogeneity bias) is where we (drastically) underestimate variance in distant cultures, grouping all Chinese consumers into one market segment, for example, while separating New Yorkers and San Franciscans into two completely different market segments (due to our familiarity with both market groups and in-depth knowledge about their differences relative to our understanding of the Chinese marketplace). (There are 1.35 Billion people in China. Do you really think they are all the same? There should be considerably more market segments in China than in the US.)

With enough data, and the willingness to blindly trust the data, Big Data will overcome all three of these biases. Since big data relies on transactions and facts, and not the limited pool of experience associated with a decision maker, the real patterns (and not the perceived one) will quickly emerge. Similarly, outliers (such as the example of the stellar salesperson who got lucky) will quickly be eliminated and bad hypotheses will not be confirmed. Finally, a good algorithm won’t group data that doesn’t belong together and if it takes 25 clusters to properly segregate the data, the algorithm will return 25 distinct clusters for human analysis and interpretation.

However, as you probably guessed, SI doesn’t believe that you need Big Data to overcome these traps. Big Brains will suffice. As the authors note, a curious open mind who does her research can overcome each of these traps. An open mind who realizes she doesn’t know much about a market and dives into it, reviewing local research and local media, will get a more realistic perspective than one which makes snap decisions based upon his limited experience. An analytical mind that looks at the ratio of success to failures in sales efforts will quickly see that the close rate is way too low, something is wrong, and a thorough investigation is needed. And an inquisitive mind that asks if the market has been thoroughly covered will realize that studies and data that only cover urban centres don’t cover the population as a whole and additional research into non-urban lifestyles, tastes, and buying patterns is needed if the company wishes to reach that market.

Big Data is needed if you want a reasonable chance of accurately predicting the weather beyond the next 24 hours, modelling stresses on a spacecraft under different adverse conditions, or brute-force breaking the SHA-256 algorithm. It’s typically not needed to get a good handle on a potential market and good product design. Brains effectively put to use will do just fine in these situations, as they have for hundreds of years.

You Need Analytics. You Need Intelligence. But Do You Need Visualization?

Probably not. Especially if all that visualization does is significantly jack up the cost of your analytics solution.

As a Procurement Pro, you need to know who is buying what, from which supplier, at what price, and in what quantity, and you need to present the relevant aggregate summaries to department managers and overall summaries to the CPO and the C-Suite — who will want to see the data graphically. Since even Excel has a plethora of charts and graphs at your disposal, it’s a safe bet that any decent spend analytics platform is going to have just about every standard graph and chart imaginable.

But just because you need charts and graphs, does this mean you also need interactive graphics that form the cornerstone of modern data visualization solutions? Kind of yes but mostly no. Interactive tree-maps, that are already built into leading spend analysis solutions, that allow a user to click on a quadrant that corresponds to a category and drill down into sub-category spend to understand why a certain category represents such a significant percentage of spend are quite useful, but 3-D rotating graphs, hyperbolic category hierarchies, network models, etc. are not that much use when it comes to understanding spend.

SI really likes the straight-forward answer to the question of does your company actually need data visualization given by Bill Shander over on the HBR Blog Network.

Given that data visualization can be expensive, especially if it involves large amounts of data and complex algorithms or deep interactive experiences, you need to decide if it’s worth the investment. If you’re selling straightforward solutions to simple problems, data visualization is probably not worth the money. Consumer packaged goods firms Coca Cola and Nestle don’t need interactive graphics to explain their products, just as Playboy and Playgirl don’t need to educate the opposite sex much about their centerfolds.

If a vendor is trying to convince you of the value of their analytics solution, they shouldn’t need rotating cubes to demonstrate that they can do sophisticated analysis, just like you shouldn’t need 3-D graphs to point out that a certain department’s refusal to adopt the corporate contract is increasing costs 15% and costing the organization 1 Million a year.

Simply put, if the analytic solution at your disposal has some advanced data visualization capability that is useful, use it, but don’t spend a lot of money for fancy graphics that don’t convey any more information than you can package in an Excel bar chart!

Can Six Drucker Questions Simplify a Complex Supply Chain? Part II

A recent post on the HBR Blog Network on Six Drucker Questions that Simplify a Complex Age poses us with a interesting inquiry — can they simplify a complex supply chain? After all, these are questions out of Drucker’s writing handpicked by Rick Wartzman (Executive Director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University), not out of Drucker’s mouth (as Drucker died 8 years ago), and given the recent turmoil in the economy, Drucker might choose different questions to lead us back to the road to recovery (and he might not).

Getting straight to the point, as an existential discussion on what Drucker may or may not ask today doesn’t help us much in the real-world of real-time supply chains, we will skip the philosophical debate and jump right into a discussion of the last three questions, continuing in the same vein as yesterday’s post.

  1. What Are Our Ideas to Try to Do New Things, Develop New Products, Design New Ways of Reaching the Market?
      SI agrees that this would be near the top of Drucker’s list as innovation is becoming more imperative for an organization to survive every year. It’s often the difference between success and bankruptcy, even for a Fortune 500, as today’s fickle consumer can often change the course of a global corporation in just a few years.
      This question is especially imperative for Supply Management that needs to get involved as early as possible in the NPD cycle to not only help identify lower cost suppliers or materials, but the most lucrative markets that will enable to organization to take advantage of economies of scale. Furthermore, supply management technology is considerably ahead of where it was a decade ago, even though most Supply Management organizations are still running on the same ERP they were running on a decade ago, and Supply Management needs to ask not only how it can catch up, but get ahead of the curve and become best-in-class sooner rather than later. Even the most laggard of the Global 3000 can become best in class in as little as five years with the right vision, plan, and change management methodology — but without the right vision, plan and change management methodology, that same organization is likely to be even further behind in five years (if it is still solvent).
  2. Who In This Organization Depends on Us for What Information?
      SI agrees that Drucker would definitely ask this question in a detailed assessment of corporate performance, but SI believes it would be in the context of who in the organization should depend on us for what information. Everyone has a role to play, but in your average organization, not everyone is playing the right role, or even understands what the roles should be!
      For example, Finance typically depends on Procurement for visibility into cash commitments, but does not depend on Procurement for Working Capital Management (WCM) guidance. Finance should be depending on Procurement for WCM guidance as only Procurement has the visibility into the supplier’s cost, financial viability, and expected cost of capital given their financial stability and local market conditions. Thus, if cashflow is limited and AP can’t take advantage of all of the early payment discounts / dynamic discounts at its disposal, only Procurement is in the position to truly determine which discounts are best for the organization in the long-term. For example, sometimes it’s better to take a lower discount if it means paying a supplier that would otherwise have to borrow at 20% per annum, as this could allow the supplier to reduce its operational costs and pass those savings back to the supplier through lower prices at contract renewal time. In comparison, paying a supplier with a cost of capital of 6% per annum early is not going to help that supplier much, which means that the one-time discount is all the value the organization gets.
  3. What Would Happen If This Specific Task Were Not Done At All?
      SI agrees that this is another inquiry Drucker would ask when doing an operational review, but doubts that it would be top of the list. SI believes that the first question would be along the lines of what would happen if we did not supply this product or service, from a market perspective and from an organizational perspective, and then when that understanding is gained, and a commitment to the product or service is confirmed, the individual tasks that are currently involved in the production and/or delivery would be questioned.
      Of course, from a Supply Management perspective, the first question is pretty easy. Either other units would absorb the minimal necessary functions, and probably do them poorly, or the company would return to the age of end-to-end siloed production where it did everything from mining the raw material to delivering the final product to the store shelves.
      The question posed by Rick is the critical question and needs to be asked of each project and task undertaken by Supply Management. If the answer is “not much”, the task or project is not value-add and probably should be dropped in favor of a task that is (more) value-add. For example, let’s take a buyer who notices that an evergreen contract for widgets, which has been in effect for five years, is coming due, which states the organization gets a 10% wholesale discount off of list price. Let’s also say that the average price increase has been about 3% per year, even though market indexes have only been going up about 2%. At a first glance, there might be a savings opportunity of 5% through re-negotiation or re-sourcing, but let’s also say that demand for the widgets has fallen 50% over the past five years, and that the total annual spend is only 2 Million of the 500 Million of Spend Under Management (SUM). Let’s also say that the organization only has the resources to tackle about 30% of the spend categories each year. In this case, if the buyer were to ignore this 0.02% savings opportunity on SUM and instead focus on sprockets, which has tripled in demand since the last contract was cut and which represents a 20 Million category where current prices are estimated to be at 3% above best price, she might be able to obtain a 0.12% savings on SUM instead. In other words, if the task of sourcing the widgets was not done at all, the organization would be better off (by a factor of 6)! Successful Supply Management always focusses on the most strategic opportunity first!

In summary, SI believes that these questions can help a Supply Manager tame the complexity of today’s Supply Chain by focussing on what matters and ignoring what doesn’t. They’re not a cure-all by any means, but insight never hurts!

Can Six Drucker Questions Simplify a Complex Supply Chain? Part I

A recent post on the HBR Blog Network on Six Drucker Questions that Simplify a Complex Age poses us with a interesting inquiry — can they simplify a complex supply chain? After all, these are questions out of Drucker’s writing handpicked by Rick Wartzman (Executive Director of the Drucker Institute at Claremont Graduate University), not out of Drucker’s mouth (as Drucker died 8 years ago), and given the recent turmoil in the economy, Drucker might choose different questions to lead us back to the road to recovery (and he might not).

Getting straight to the point, as an existential discussion on what Drucker may or may not ask today doesn’t help us much in the real-world of real-time supply chains, we will skip the philosophical debate and jump right into a discussion of the first three questions.

  1. What Does the Customer Value?
    SI agrees that regardless of what has happened since his death, Drucker would still be asking this question — and it would probably be the first question out of his mouth in any business discussion. The tighter times get, the more the customer focusses on what they really need where necessity is concerned and what they really want where discretionary spending, which is limited in difficult economic times, is concerned. If the pie is small, an organization’s only chance of getting a piece of it is to be better at giving the customer what they want than the competition.
    This is a very important question for Supply Management as the Supply Chain should be designed to produce what the customer values, and only what the customer values — extra activity is non-value add and only adds cost to the chain (that Supply Management should focus on removing as soon as possible as that’s easy, instant, cost savings).
  2. What is our Business, and What should it Be?
    SI agrees that Drucker would still be asking this question, an in particular, the latter half of this question. If a customer values X and Y, and the organization is producing X when it could produce Y more competitively, and gain a larger market share, then it should probably switch to producing Y.
    This is another very important question for Supply Management as many Supply Management organizations are still focussed on cost savings when they should be focussed on value generation. Cost can only be taken out once. Value can be generated year after year after year by identifying products and features customers will pay more for and functions that will help the other organizational units do their jobs more (cost) effectively and increase the value those organizational units bring to the table.
  3. What is the Task?
    SI agrees that this is an important question, and would probably be asked by Drucker, but is not sure that this should be in the top 6 questions as SI does not think this question is a starting point.
    More specifically, SI thinks the first question should be What is the Goal?. The task, which is fuzzy in knowledge work, is better understood once the goal is well defined. Moreover, this is not covered by the last question. The last question simply helps the business identify what it should be doing (such as making sprockets and not widgets), not what it should be achieving (such as becoming the market leader in standard sprocket class AZ or the market leader in custom manufactured sprockets for the automotive industry). That’s where the goal comes in.
    In supply management, the task might be to source sprocket springs, but that’s not a clear task until a goal is identified, which could be reduce acquisition costs by 10%, which should be achievable based on current steel prices and supply demand dynamics or select a new strategic supplier who will jointly implement the a new spring production process designed to reduce steel requirements and environmental impacts, which will, in the long run, decrease costs by 25%. Once the goal is defined, the task is better understood and can be mapped out with a workflow and project plan.

Come back tomorrow when we will address the last three questions.