Category Archives: rants

Just What Does Modern Sourcing Need?

Every year vendors, analysts, and even bloggers come up with their view of what next generation sourcing is, and what is going to get us there. This year, there is a big push towards AI (Artificial Intelligence) and not just predictive, but prescriptive analytics. Apparently, the Sourcing (and Procurement) of the future will be managed by computers, and not by experts. This is not only unnecessary, but a bit scary.

Why is it scary? Because computers run on algorithms and algorithms are not intelligence. Even though it’s theoretically possible for a sufficiently powerful computing platform to pass the Turing test*, all it does is point out the insufficiency of the Turing test for assessing the intelligence of a computer program. While computers can process significantly more data than we can, and modern predictive (trend) models, given enough data, can be more accurate than our intuition, they cannot detect when they are likely to fail or there is information or factors that need to be considered not baked into the model.

For example, if the prescriptive analytics relies on predictive analytics that relies on price trend modelling that simply takes into account price history, currency fluctuations, demand for related products or commodities, and demand for commodities that are usually used to hedge against price fluctuations in the product or commodity category, it will not detect when a natural disaster will result in a supply chain disruption that will result in less product or commodity availability in two months, which, of course, will have a drastic impact on price. As a result, the recommendation to spot-buy while the price is dropping is the wrong one, because as soon as supply drops, prices will skyrocket and it will be too late to lock in the current price.

But this isn’t the worst that can happen. If the AI that monitors multiple pricing trends, expiring contracts, and supplier performance not only ignores this blip but, instead, not only directs a resourcing for an expiring contract on an unrelated,but highly strategic, category, but encourages the inclusion of a supplier (that normally does not supply that category) that is currently in financial distress, the organization could end up blindly awarding a critical category (that is currently being served by a stable, reliable, reasonably low cost supplier) to a different supplier that is about to go bankrupt and then, seemingly without warning, stock-out on a critical product for months.

As you can probably guess, the doctor still believes that Sourcing and Procurement do not need AI and prescriptive analytics. What they really need are powerful and modifiable rules-based workflows, exception monitoring, suspicious transaction identification, and event monitoring.

The true power of a platform is to automate the tactical and streamline the strategic. Every minute of a professional’s time should be spent on strategic activities or issue resolution, not electronic paper pushing. Document matching, data collection and verification, contract monitoring, automated trend computation, etc. are all tasks that should be done automatically, but no actions with any strategic impact should be taken without intelligent human intervention.

A good rules-based workflow can allow tactical tasks, such as invoice matching and marketing monitoring, to be automated according to accepted rules and ensures that professionals only need to be involved when the parameters exceed the specified norms. Exception monitoring can insure that when something is out of expected norms, or exceeds ranges, or happens too often, it is immediately brought to the attention of the right individual. A suspicious transaction monitoring system, even if statistically based, minimizes the chances of duplicate payments, fraud, audit trail tampering, and so on. And event monitoring, even though it will produce a number of false positives, will enable a human to identify events that might impact the projected supply and cost trends for commodities and products purchased by the organization, and mark those for manual review and, possibly, re-sourcing if need be.

Modern sourcing does need better technology, but it doesn’t need artificial intelligence. It needs platforms that can help the sourcing professional focus appropriately, not guide the professional down a programmed path that will only give Sourcing and Procurement a false sense of security. The solution can track best practices for different situations, but the human still needs to determine if the system’s assessment is proper. Sourcing needs a system that empowers it with the intelligence it needs to make the right decisions, not a system that makes decisions and acts on those decisions (with automated contracts, orders, etc.) without human review and approval.

* A computer that is capable of sampling all conversations archived and currently taking place in real time, finding the one that best matches the conversation you are having, and providing that answer will provide a conversation indistinguishable from that provided from a real human, but it’s not intelligent. It merely proves the infinite monkey theorem.

3 More Terrible Reasons NOT to Use e-Procurement

Over on Procurement.World, the procurement dynamo gives us 3 Terrible Reasons NOT to Use e-Procurement, which, sadly, are still used by many organizations in the bottom 40% to 60%, to fight the implementation and adoption of e-Procurement systems.

If the reasons given in the procurement dynamo‘s post were the only reasons, that would be bad enough. But these are just a few of the reasons that Procurement organizations don’t use e-Procurement. In this post we are going to discuss other reasons, and, in particular, reasons that are a bit more believable — which are the worst kind of reasons.

1. Our Processes are Not Supported in the New System

While it’s true that the processes used by organizations that are still operating like it’s the last century are not supported out of the box, modern procurement platforms come with adjustable workflows that can be tailored to support just about any process the organization needs, good or bad. This may have been an excuse with first generation systems with fixed rules and workflows, but it’s not an excuse anymore.

2. The system won’t work with our current ERP or AP system

Most organizations require that all POs get in the ERP, all invoices in the AP, and all goods receipts in the inventory system. Because no recommended e-Procurement system will integrate with these systems out of the box, anyone against the implementation of such a system will insist it won’t work. And, again, wile this may have been an excuse with first generation systems that were almost impossible to integrate with anything, it’s not an excuse anymore when most e-Procurement vendors realize that their systems have to integrate with other systems and have published data models, open APIs, and middleware that enables the easy integration with such systems.

3. We don’t need Supply Management System X, we need Supply Management System Y.

Sometimes, knowing that a system they don’t want is inevitable, an opposing employee will suggest that a system is needed, but the system under consideration is not the right one and a totally different system is needed. For example, you are looking at a P2P and they will insist that a S2C is needed, or vice versa. Or they will insist that the ERP needs an upgrade. Or so on. But it will all be a distraction.

Systems will always be opposed, but when they are needed, they need to get implemented. The key is to select the right one. But with proper homework (and many posts on this blog will tell you how to do it), the right one can be selected.

London Bridge is Falling Down

But this time, it’s not the vikings*, it’s the procurement. And this is not a good thing. Bridges need to be built, not put on indefinite hold while enquiries are made into funding proposals. But then again, why does a foot bridge cost £185M?

As per a recent post by the public defender over on Spend Matters UK on how “Procurement and Funding [is] To Be Reviewed”, while a previous internal review by Transport for London did not find any evidence that would suggest that the final recommendations did not provide value for money from the winning bidders, the report did find major breaches of good procurement process. From allowing a supplier to submit a bid after the formal deadline, to a lack of documentation, to changing the evaluation process once bids were received, to treating suppliers differently – as we said, if any unsuccessful bidder had challenged in court there is no doubt that they would have won their case.

While this is bad, and provides a solid reason to put everything on hold for further examination and inquiry, this situation should never have happened in the first place. With so many resources on good public procurement available from the EU, the OECD, and private government oversight organizations, there’s no excuse, and no call, for any government procurement body in any advanced country to conduct an event like this — especially when there are good public procurement platforms (including, but not limited to Intenda, Causeway, Perfect Commerce, and others) to prevent situations like this from happening (and some are custom built for big procurement projects). Modern platforms block late submissions, allow evaluation criteria to be locked down before the bid goes out, allow initial submissions to be reviewed blind, and so on.

So, we beg you, before any more bridges fall down (or literally fall down because the funding to fix them has to be put on indefinite hold while the Procurement process is reviewed), learn the rules, follow the best practices, and put good platforms in place that prevent bad processes from ever happening in the first place.

* While the popular rhyme has to do with London Bridge falling down, the reality is that the rhyme might be the result of the destruction of (a) London bridge by Olaf the II of Norway somewhere between 1009 and 1014.

Platforms are Needed to Accelerate Procurement Agility – But Don’t Overlook the Offline Contributions

Over on Spend Matters UK, the public defender wrote a great post on “Why Platforms are Needed to Accelerate Procurement Agility” and discussed how the digitization of our everyday lives through cloud-based services served up over the internet is arguably the single greatest consumer trend of the modern era. In this post, he noted that the digitization trend has also worked its way upstream into B2B value chains and since businesses don’t want to be “digitally disrupted” by others they are searching for new supplier capabilities they can serve up as new customer-facing services.

This is a great use of digitization capability where it makes sense, but it’s not just online agility that is needed, it’s offline too. And this is where modern platforms can make the most impact.

Consider the NPD/NPI lifecycle. Right now, what typically happens is engineering works in their own little world designing a product, and when it’s mostly done, they contact procurement to help them find sources of supply and qualify their preferred manufacturing houses. This is typically done in CAD/CAM software, disconnected from everything, and can be a slow process.

Initial design might have to be slow, but the fact that its disconnected can really slowdown the NPI cycle. If design is not plugged in to the rest of the enterprise, and Procurement cannot be involved from day one, the engineers might choose discontinued parts, work with unfavourable suppliers, or even work on features that are not desired by the majority of current customers.

Then there is sourcing. Without advanced knowledge, Sourcing will not only need ramp up time to identify sources of supply, but might be stuck trying to source materials in limited supply that have a locked in price higher than the organization can afford if it wants to meet cost targets. Early involvement can help Engineering understand where the cost is and select the right design options when it has a choice.

Then there is inventory and manufacturing planning. Procurement needs to be plugged into marketing and sales to accurately estimate demand, and have to be in tune with supplier production capacities and shipment times to make sure orders are placed on time and stock-outs can be addressed quickly in times of demand surge.

The only way NPD/NPI time can be minimized is if the process goes smoothly. The only way this can happen is if Procurement is involved from the beginning and can connect with each impacted department in the organization at the right time and can communicate with suppliers quickly and consistently. This can only be done with a modern platform and illustrates why platforms are truly needed for Procurement agility.

Procurement is Still the Rodney Dangerfield of the Organization and Land of Confusion Is Its Theme Song

Why else would we need an egalitarian Procurement Revolution where we must work collectively to shape and drive change?

But in all seriousness, the numbers don’t lie. If you check out “Five Imperatives for Creating Greater Procurement Agility”, which was recently (and still may be) temporarily free from The Hackett Group, you see that the average Procurement Function Operating Budget is forecasted to increase a mere 1.1% this year. Now, that’s better than last year where it was forecasted to increase a mere 0.7%, but when you consider the average annual US inflation rate from 2000 to 2015 was 2.25% (which you can verify on a number of sites), relatively speaking, Procurement is still getting further and further behind every year!

This is despite the fact that world-class procurement (which needs to be properly funded), has an average payback that is twice that of the Procurement peer group. And, as far as the doctor is concerned, the argument that, since world-class procurement organizations have 18% lower operating costs than the peer group, Procurement doesn’t need as much money, doesn’t pass muster because “operating” costs are different from “capital” costs and might or might not include “training” costs or “travel” costs.

If the organization is doing a lot of outsourcing, then a lot of travel is needed by procurement, engineering, etc. for relationship and quality control site visits, and if all of this has to come out of the Procurement budget, as opposed to the operations budget, that’s not fair. If Procurement is not allowed to spend “capital” to acquire a new system, but must instead use a SaaS solution so it can be expensed monthly under the “operating” budget, while manufacturing and warehousing gets a budget that does not include the ERP upkeep, that’s not fair. If Procurement is subject to the across-the-board training ban, because people should know their jobs when they are hired, and are deprived of the ability to advance their skills, not only is that not fair, but that can be costing the organization millions of dollars as sometimes a better informed and prepared procurement professional can shave an extra percentage point off of a hundred million dollar buy, which makes the 10K it cost to send the person to a 3 day workshop paltry in comparison.

Plus, when sales has to increase revenue by $10 to equal the same savings that Procurement often makes by taking $1 off of the bottom line, it should, logically, make sense to throw money at Procurement instead of the marketing mad men or the house of lies consulting firm. But it doesn’t, proving that most board rooms are still cemented in the land of confusion and Procurement is still the Rodney Dangerfield that don’t get no respect with a kick-me sign on its back.