Category Archives: Outsourcing

STOP Outsourcing Your Success!

Joel recently posted that you should stop outsourcing your career development to people who won’t live with the consequences. And it was a great post. But don’t stop there.

Stop outsourcing your success to vendors, consultancies, and analyst firms who don’t have to live with the consequences! (Unless, of course, you like paying The Vendor In Black for a mess and then paying The Vendor In Black [to] Come[s] Back and clean up the mess, and losing time and money just to get back to where you are now.)

Actually, to be more precise, stop outsourcing your success to vendors, consultancies, and analyst firms who don’t have to live with the consequences and who continue to get paid whether you succeed or not!

This means that you should not pick an analyst firm or consulting firm or (mega) source-to-[ay suites that claims to be a “one size fits all and does all” and essentially outsource your success to them!

For example, for:

  • roadmaps: hire the right niche consultant expert who knows her continual employment relies on you actually getting results and who can help you honestly assess your current state and readiness
  • tech selection: engage directly, or through the niche consultant above, an expert who knows who the vendors are, what they can do, and how to help you select the right one (and who knows she’ll never be consulted again if she doesn’t help you select the right vendor)
  • implementation: hire firms with plans that go beyond initial implementation and put them on the hook for ongoing fixes (if they f*ck up), training, and support and where their profit, and margin, depends on your success. (And insist on hybrid payment models where every dollar beyond their fixed personnel costs depends on you realizing outcomes, as per our post on why you should STOP PAYING PROCURETECH/FINTECH ADVISORIES A DOLLAR JUST TO LOSE THREE DOLLARS!)

In other words, you have to find the right experts, determine your readiness, manage your own projects, and ensure your own adoption. At the end of the day, all the big providers care about is that the transfer clears. Your success, and your organization’s success, is up to you. All the princes do is watch,

Dangerous Procurement Predictions Part II

As per our first post, if you read my predictions post, you know SI hates predictions posts. It fully despises them because the vast majority of these posts are pure optimistic fantasy and help no one. Why are the posts like this? Because no one wants to hear the sobering reality off of the bat in the new year and the influencers care more about clicks than actually helping you.

But the predictions are not only bad, they’re dangerous. And to make sure you don’t fall for them and make bad decision based on them, we’re going to tackle some of the most dangerous predictions, which include predictions that look innocuous at first glance (like the last prediction on how a big legacy suite will go out of business) but hide the dangerous consequences of what will actually happen if a big suite finds itself in big trouble. Today we tackle the next four, and you can be sure this won’t be the last post in our series. Feeds are still being flooded with prediction posts, and I’m done ignoring the insanity.

4. The jobs market will be tough for the first half of the year, but will start to pick up in Q3 and Q4.

The job market is tied to the economy, and everyone predicts the job market will rebound when the economy picks up. But here’s the thing. Even when the economy picks back up, the job market never does quite as well as the last time. And the economy isn’t going to magically improve half-way through the year. This is the exact same thing we’ve been told the last two years, and it hasn’t happened.

First off, most of the first world economies around the world are flat, borderline recession, or in recession. Secondly, the only thing propping the US economy up right now is AI, and the money circles keeping it afloat as all the AI, Hardware, and Software companies keep moving the same money around investing in each other to keep each other afloat. If the bubble bursts, the US is in trouble, and the economy will quickly flush itself down the toilet. And the job market will go with it.

Considering only the big tech giants who have been hoarding cash for the last few years are in good shape, and everyone else is trying to conserve cash to survive not only the current market but a potential recession, the last thing they are going to do is hire unless absolutely necessary to fill a critical role as a result of a departure. Remember, they’ve spent the last two years using AI as an excuse to lay people off and are always looking for the next excuse to lay people off, not hire them!

Jobs will continue to be super scarce, and only the best will have a chance to land one.

5. We’re in the early stages of a broader pushback (against unnecessary upgrades or technology investments).

A few companies smartening up and saying no to forced big provider upgrades, eight (8) figure consultancy projects, and big Gen-AI investments is not pushback. There have always been a few leaders who have broken away from the pack, did the math, and made the right decisions, but the pack is still charging ahead on Gen-AI. Every big software shop except IBM (who hired a CEO who can actually do math) has invested heavily in Gen-AI, which still loses four dollars for every dollar of revenue, despite any hopes of a real return in the near future and a 94% failure rate.

Let’s face reality. I warned this space about The Vendor In Black nineteen years ago and how he always Comes Back sixteen years ago, no one took heed then, and no one is taking heed now. The business model of the enterprise software space, which has not changed for the two decades I’ve been covering it, is to solve the problem created by the old sh!t by selling the customers the new sh!t that comes with new problems so they can sell even newer sh!t in three years to fix those (and so on). Same old story. Only the vendor names change.

6. We Won’t Buy Things; We’ll Orchestrate Ecosystems.

This prediction likely came straight from the A.S.S.H.O.L.E. and anyone who repeats it should be ashamed of themselves. There are no AI Employees. Claims to the contrary are false and anyone making those demeaning and degrading claims is simply dehumanizing you. And, as we have clearly explained, you definitely don’t want agentic buying because it will happily spend your money not only on stuff you don’t need but stuff that doesn’t exist and, if you’re super unlikely, stuff that is highly illegal. You need wood, it will buy up all the Minecraft wood because it’s cheap and call your problem solved. And that’s if you’re lucky. If you’re not, it will fulfill your resin need with an illegal purchase of hash (the drug) on the dark web (which is labelled resin so the poster can claim they never advertised an illegal drug). And so on.

Plus, as we have already noted, most of today’s “orchestration” platforms in Source-to-Pay are really ORCestration platforms and can barely connect a handful of major Source-to-Pay offerings. They’re nothing close to what is needed to orchestrate ecosystems.

7. Boards will Zero in on Supply Chain Security and Supplier Risk shifts from quarterly PowerPoints to continuous “signalops”.

Just like they won’t invest more in cybersecurity, they won’t invest more in supply chain security until they lose a shipment in the tens of millions. After all, they’ve got supply chain insurance, why should they care? Especially since their current security measures have been sufficient up until now.

But here’s the thing. When the economy goes down, jobs go down. And then two things happen. People get desperate and turn to crime. And criminals, when their investments in drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, and other quasi-legal through illegal activities start losing money because unemployed people run out of money to spend on their vices, these criminals get desperate too — and high value theft becomes more attractive. A temporarily unguarded truck here. A container there. An entire warehouse. And so on.

If it’s critical raw materials they can move (like rare earths), in-demand finished electronics they can sell (like iPhones, where a single container will contain at least 20M worth), military equipment or weapon (component)s that are now in demand globally, they’ll take bigger and bigger chances, especially if there are weaknesses in security. It’s not just cyber attacks that are going to increase, it’s physical attacks, supply chains aren’t ready, and companies won’t even stop preparing them until they lose tens of millions, don’t recover it all through insurance, and risk losing their insurance entirely. No one likes the math of risk prevention because, when it works, you don’t see the return. Even though it’s so much cheaper than insurance! And that’s why, in the majority of organizations, nothing will change.

There is a Price of Relocating to “Friendly Countries”, but There Are also Corresponding Cost Reductions

This originally posted on January 3 (2024), but is being reprinted in case you missed it due to the rising importance of near/home shoring!

A recent article in El Pais on the price of relocating factories to ‘friendly countries’ noted that according to the European Central Bank (ECB), 42% of the large companies in the Old Continent that it has recently surveyed have resolved to produce in allied countries as a means of reducing risks. However, this relocation carries economic consequences, and international institutions — such as the IMF and the ECB — warn of its impact on growth and soaring prices.

The article is right. Some prices will go up as countries move out of countries in, or likely to engage in conflict, both of the physical (war) and the economic (closed borders, significant tariff increases, rolling lockdowns, etc.) variety, and move to more “friendly” countries. (As far as SI is concerned, it shouldn’t just be “friendly” countries, it should be “friendly countries close to home”. At least companies are realizing that China and/or the lowest cost country is not always the answer when that answer comes with risks that, when they materialize, could lead to skyrocketing costs and losses that dwarf five years of “savings”.

Furthermore, even though 60% of those contacted said that changes in the location of production and/or cross-border sourcing of supplies had push up their average prices over the past five years, this hasn’t been true across the board, it doesn’t have to be true, and some of those could still see savings as they optimize their new processes, methodologies, and supply chain network. (Changes don’t reach full efficiency overnight, and sometimes it is two or three years before you can optimize a supply chain network due to existing contracts, infrastructure, etc.)

Why are costs (initially) going up for many companies?

  • wages: many of the “friendly” countries are more economically mature, or advantaged, with a higher standard of living buffered up by higher wages / better social systems
  • utility charges: in “friendly” countries that are using newer, cleaner, sources of energy or limiting energy production from burning (coal, oil, natural gas) have energy costs that are often higher as the initial infrastructure investment has not been amortized, water costs could be higher if more processing inbound or outbound is required, and so on
  • production overhead: chances are that the factories are newer, required a large investment that isn’t anywhere close to being paid off yet by the owner, and you’re paying a portion of the large interest payment to the investors/banks as part of the overhead

However, it’s important to note that:

  • productivity: will go up when you move to a locale where the workforce is more educated and skilled and is better able to employ automation and modern practices, and thus gets more efficient over time, countering the initial wage increase
  • energy costs: will reduce over time as a solar farm or wind farm can produce renewable energy for decades, with the initial investment often being paid back within one third to one quarter of that time; as a result, energy prices should remain flat(ter) over time than in the locales where they are still burning dwindling fossil fuels (which rise every year in cost) and have not yet invested in renewables
  • overhead: will decrease once the investments are paid back (and the interest payments are gone), which means it can stay flat as other production related costs rise (compared to older plants which will eventually reach a point where the revitalization investment becomes significant on a regular basis)

In addition to:

  • logistics costs: will reduce when you choose a friendly country closer to your target markets (since most freight is ocean freight on fossil fuel burning cargo ships)
  • disruption costs: will reduce as less risk translates into less (costly) disruptions over time

So while costs may go up a bit at first, at least relatively speaking, they will go down over time, especially as network and process optimizations are introduced and obtained from experience with the new network, suppliers, and technologies.

There are Perks and Pitfalls of Friend-Shoring — But The Answer is Near-shoring!

On Tuesday, when we told you the tariff tax is coming and there’s nothing you can do about it, we told you the long-term solution is near-shoring, and while others will tell you that the short-term answer is friend-shoring, we want to make it clear that it is NOT.

As a result of recent logistics disruptions, geopolitics, and global disasters, and all of the supply disruptions that have resulted, a lot of global companies are starting to pull back on global outsourcing and extended supply chains, at least where they seem to have options.

Apparently a number of these organizations are considering Friendshoring, as per yet another article on the subject, with a recent example being the perks and pitfalls of friendshoring in EP&T.

According to this article this strategic shift is buzzing among industry leaders and policymakers. Why, I’m not sure.

The article has the following benefits right:

  • enhanced security and trust as partners tend to trust each other and keep each other safe
  • improved compliance and standards as friends generally work to serve the same markets and are more aware of the standards and regulatory requirements that need to be met for all to benefit

And has the following challenge mostly right:

  • increased costs as most “friends” are in first world countries with higher labour costs, higher utility and operating costs, stricter environmental regulations, etc. etc. etc. so costs are generally a bit higher up front (at first)

But here’s what the article overlooks:

  • better quality since these friends usually operate at higher standards with better tech which typically translates into
  • more reliability and longevity which generally translates into
  • reduced returns and warranty costs as customers will generally discard or move on from the product before it breaks
  • higher sales prices as customers will pay more for quality

And here’s what the article really overlooks.

It’s NOT friendshoring, it’s nearshoring!

Preferably somewhere you can get to on land, or from a nearby port. For North America, that means we should primarily be outsourcing from Central America (since we can get our stuff on trucks if ocean freighter availability is low) and, if we can’t get it there, from South America — since we can get it from a ship that sails up and down the coast (and doesn’t have to pass through a canal that has limited capacity due to drought or is unsafe due to terrorist presence). NOT from China, unless it is a raw material we can’t get elsewhere.

The nearer the source, and the less countries and distance the materials or products have to pass through, the less chance for disruption.

Moreover, it’s NOT the friends you have, it’s the friends you need, which may not be one in the same.

For example, a company in the UK might be your “friend”, but the UK is expensive, crossing the Atlantic is expensive and risky at certain times of the year, and you might be able to invest in a supplier in Mexico to get the same product! Moreover, if you invest in a company to help them grow, they are much more likely to stay your friend than a company who is only your friend because they think you are locked in to them.

Plus, if you choose, and invest in, up and coming / new suppliers, you can help them with their processes, new technology selections and plant upgrades, and even sub-tier supplier and material selection. This can be more helpful to you than an established supplier locked into their ways and last-generation technology and production lines they paid too much for.

Some of your “friends” will be the right “friends”, some won’t. Analyze them all and make sure they fit all of your requirements: near, quality, reliability, and potential for future value creation. (Not just future cost reduction after you help them get efficient, but potential sales price increase, value added services, and other factors that might increase the overall profit equation. After all, Procurement is about increasing business value, not just about securing supply and controlling costs.)

Stay close to home, and even home-shore when you can, and you will see fewer disruptions, which should be your goal as supply disruption has been the biggest risk for at least the last 15 years.

Why Do Outsourcing and AI Go So Wrong?

In a recent post on how We Need to Hasten Onshoring and Nearshoring, Jon The Revelator was inspired to ask the following question:

even though outsourcing and AI have merit when properly implemented, why do things go so wrong?

This was after noting, in another post, that we have suffered year-by-year, decade-by-decade disappointment when 80% (and even higher) of initiatives fail to achieve the expected outcome.

Because in both cases [and this assumes the case where the organization is implementing real, classic, traditional AI for a tried-and-true use case and not modern Gen(erative) A(rtificial) I(diocy)], things have gone wrong, and sometimes terribly wrong, on a regular basis.

So, the doctor answered.

Fundamentally, there are two reasons that things consistently go wrong.

The first reason is the same reason things go so wrong when you put an accountant in charge of a major aerospace company or a lawyer in charge of a major hobby gaming company (when the first has zero understanding of aerospace engineering and the second of what games are and what fans want from them).

Like the accountant and the lawyer, they don’t understand their organizational and stakeholder/user needs!

The second major reason is that they don’t understand what these “solutions” actually do and how to properly qualify, select, and implement them. And, most importantly, what to realistically expect from them … and when.

A GPO is not a GPO is not a GPO — these Group Purchasing Organizations specialize by industry and region; and in making an impact by category and usage. They are not everything for everyone.

AI is not AI is not AI (unless it’s all Gen-AI, then it’s all bullcr@p). Until Gen-AI, the doctor was promoting ALL Advanced Sourcing Tech, including properly designed, implemented, and tested AI, because the right AI was as close to a miracle as you’ll get. (And the wrong AI will bankrupt you.) Now, any AI post 2020 is suspect to the nth degree.

Simply stated, the failures are because they all think they can press the big red easy button and throw it over the wall. But you can’t manage what you don’t understand! And until the world remembers this, these failures will continue to happen on a consistent basis.

And, as organizations continue to press that Gen-AI powered “easy” button while outsourcing more and more of their critical operations, expect to see a resurgence of the big supply chain disasters, like the ones we saw in the 90s and the 00s (including the ones which wiped out Billion $ companies). Hard to believe that only nine years ago the doctor was worried about companies relying on outdated ERPs ending up in the supply chain disaster record books, given how many of the disasters were the result of a big-bang ERP implementation. However, the risks associated with Gen-AI makes ERP risks look like training wheel risks!

As a result, it’s more critical that you select the right provider and / or the right solution if you want a decent chance of success. (The worst part of all this is that while there have been spectacular failures, most of the failures were not the result of selecting a bad provider or a bad solution, but the result of selecting the wrong provider or the wrong solution for you. (Remember, provider sales people are not incentivized to qualify clients for appropriateness, they are incentivized to sell. It’s your job to qualify them for you. In other words, even though there are bad providers and bad solutions out there, they are considerably fewer than there were in the days when Silicon Snake Oil was all the rage.) In the majority of failures, primarily those that weren’t spectacular failures, the providers were good providers with good people, but when the solution they offer is a square peg for your smaller round hole, what should be expected?