Category Archives: rants

Benchmarks are Bad — But Don’t Just Take My Word For It!

A decade ago, Jeffrey Pfeffer, the Thomas D. Dee II Professor of Organizational Behaviour at Stanford University’s Graduate School of Business, wrote a book with Robert Sutton called Hard Facts, Dangerous Half-Truths, and Total Nonsense: Profiting from Evidence-Based Management (Kindle), in which they stated there were three inherent problems with benchmarking. Especially external benchmarking.

1. If your business strategy is simply to copy what others do, then the best you can hope for is to be a perfect imitation.

2. When you benchmark, all you see is the most visible and superficial aspects of the company you are benchmarking.

3. When you try to copy, you forget to ask “should I copy this? is it right for me”?

It’s not who’s spending the least on inventory with JiT (Just-in-Time) supply chains, or who has the lowest labour costs (with warehouses in Georgia and Wyoming), or who has the lowest transportation costs (through mega-volume contracts with a single carrier), etc. It’s not even who has the lowest cost supply chain (although that’s a great start, just look at Apple for inspiration). It’s who has the biggest profit and biggest brand reputation — and that is the organization who manages to extract the most value from every dollar spent.

You don’t get value from a benchmark — the most you can get from a benchmark is an idea of where value may lie. And while this is a great start, especially since, if properly defined, it allows the organization to see where it is doing well against it’s defined metrics and goals, it’s only the start.

Moreover, if the benchmark is ill-defined, it can often hide huge over-spend. The organization could easily be over-spending by 10% or more, operating quite inefficiently compared to it’s potential, or focussing its effort on low return activities — something it will never know unless it continually challenges the benchmark and looks for ways to redefine what the baselines should be. But benchmarks, when they turn green, often lull the organization into a false sense of security. Which is scary. Because …

The reality is that benchmarks are filled with traps and hidden dangers. And if you don’t want to step on a landmine, you should download The Dangers of Benchmarking (registration required) today and identify the six major hidden dangers of benchmarks, four of which are easily eliminated with the right application of a(n optimization-backed) sourcing platform.

Why Create RFP Hell?

Over ten (10) years ago, over on the LawMarketing Blog, Larry Bodine asked “Why Go to RFP Hell?” in response to a fellow lawyer who asked how her firm could get more RFPs for legal work from corporations. This question is as relevant today as it was then.

As Mr. Bodine quite astutely noted, RFPs are onerous chores leading to hideous events where clients get the chance to dictate terms, chisel down your fees and turn you into a fungible commodity. Nobody wants to be fungible. Moreover, RFPs were liked to competing to be the first to be hanged.

Why? RFPs were typically 50-page monstrosities divided into a dozen sections that required a complete history of relevant litigation, minority hiring statistics, alternative fee arrangements, financials, references, industry knowledge, and so on — all to make a short-list. At which time, if the firm was not considerably better than the incumbent in the eyes of the buyer, they would not see a penny. It is a hell.

A hell unnecessarily created by buyers who believe that they cannot even consider a supplier for an event before they know everything there is to know, even though a single piece of information can disqualify the supplier from consideration before any negotiations ever begin.

This is not a good thing to do. A company with a reputation for putting its potential suppliers though RFP hell is not one that many suppliers will want to deal with. The more a supplier’s peers complain about RFP hell with Company X, the fewer are the suppliers who will even acknowledge the existence of an RFP from Company X. As the word of RFP Hell from Company X spreads, the only suppliers that will respond to an RFP from Company X are those that are desperate. Those in bad financial shape, those without a stable customer base, and those with a bad reputation. These are not suppliers you want to deal with.

If you need to cast a wide net to find new suppliers, start with an RFI that only requests enough information to determine whether or not an RFP response from a supplier can be seriously considered. And before this RFI is issued, make sure to understand the category need in detail and what the absolutes are and that the RFI addresses each absolute. If multi-lingual support is an absolute, if a platform that encrypts 100% of data is an absolute, if a company with a headquarters in a country where it can be held responsible and liable for its products is required, or if a company with a factory with certain equipment is required, the relevant questions should be asked in the RFI. You should never ask a supplier to complete a 50-page RFP until you are sure the supplier can meet every absolute requirement. You can ask them even if their chances, based upon their initial RFI response, are less than 1% (as long as you make the award criteria, and weightings, abundantly clear), but not if their chances are known to be zero. (With complete requirements, award factors, and weightings clearly known, a supplier should be able to determine its own chances and determine whether or not its investment of time is worth it.)

And then, make sure that if you need a supplier to complete a lengthy RFP, that the RFP is well written. For details on how to write better RFPs, see the ongoing series over on Spend Matters Plus (membership required) by the anarchist, the maverick, and the doctor, of which 3 parts are already up.

  • I: Intro & Issues
  • II: Requirements
  • III: Provider Secrets

The Logistics Industry Talent Shortage Is Its Own Fault

For years we’ve been hearing about the logistics industry worker shortage which, over the years, has had the worker shortage projection increase from a little over 100K when the shortage was first reported as bad in the mid 2000s to 1.4M jobs in 2018 according to a 2014 Fortune article. Now, not all of this is a driver shortage — some of this is a shortage of talent in high tech, analytics, robotics, engineering, seasoned managers, marketers, data analysis, and even human resources — but a significant portion of this shortage *is* a driver shortage.

But why is there a driver shortage, especially when the “un”official U-6 unemployment rate in the US, which includes all unemployed persons as well as persons marginally attached to the labor force plus persons employed part time who would like to be employed full time, is still 9.9%? (If you do the math, that’s over 31M people looking for at least some work … should be easy enough to fill a few hundred thousand driver jobs, right?)

Wrong. The shortage keeps getting worse. But why?

The answer is multi-faceted but one of the big problems is the double-edged sword of perception. How the general populace outside of the logistics industry views logistics and how the workforce inside logistics views the general populace. We will discuss both of these.

The first problem is that, in the US in particular, truck driving is seen as an unglamorous blue-collar job for those who are average, lack drive, and live in a trailer park. It’s not a job for the middle class or those who are part of the respectable community. It’s hard to get truckers if you can’t even get applicants.

But this is only half the problem. The other half is that truckers believe that their brethren should be like them — middle-aged men who like to share crude jokes in old-school truck stops and who fit the stereotype of the trucking industry. If a young women were to apply for the job, she’d have to put up with funny looks and crude, disrespectful jokes, on a daily basis. This is a shame, because now that the job no longer requires brute strength, it can be done by anyone, including a woman — who probably has better time management skills, a calmer head during traffic jams, and less tarnishes on her record (which is a statistical fact).

But, as per this great article over on the BBC on why don’t women become truckers, no matter where you go in the world, it’s the same. A woman driving a lorry gets funny looks and has to listen to unfunny jokes and has to listen to things like wow, I didn’t know women could drive trucks. But a woman can like driving a truck just as much as a man. And a woman who needs a job can be just as willing to drive one as a man. Especially if it was to be again seen as a respectable profession (which first requires people in the industry to treat others with respect).

If the perception improves, the industry can attract more truckers. There might still be a worker shortage, but it would not be nearly as bad if the industry was attracting applicants of both sexes on a regular basis.

Mass Adoption of Optimization via Modern Sourcing Platforms

In a previous post, we addressed three common misconceptions about sourcing. In this post we expand upon those corrections we provided to give you six pillars of a properly designed optimization-based sourcing platform.

The three pillars of a properly designed optimization-based sourcing platform that we addressed in our last post were:

  • Useable by everyone, including the most junior of buyers
  • Affordable as any other sourcing platform
  • Efficient, decreasing event set-up time by at least a factor of 2 to 3

In addition, an optimization-based sourcing platform is also:

Powerful

Optimization is powerful. A modern optimization engine can solve sourcing problems to 99.9%+ optimality in a matter of minutes, even if they require tens of thousands of variables and hundreds of thousands of equations to describe. The platform is effectively evaluating hundreds of thousands, or millions, of different award splits in a matter of minutes.

Valuable, more so than any other sourcing platform

Simply put, optimization gets amazing results. Even if the category has been negotiated repeatedly over the last ten years, and it looks like the savings opportunities are razor thin, with the ability to analyze more suppliers, more bids, more transportation options, more value-add options, more constraints, and more supplier-specified opportunities, optimization can often identify an additional savings of 10% or more. In fact, the year-over-year average savings from optimization alone on the categories it has been applied to has been clocked at 12%, more than any other sourcing platform.

Insightful

With optimization, you can create different scenarios, with different suppliers, constraints, and goals and see how the optimal awards differ as the problem definition changes. This inspires a sourcing analyst to look at the problem in different ways.

However, the first three statements in particular are only true if the platform used by default is an optimization-backed sourcing platform . Classically, optimization solutions have been implemented as stand-alone platforms. These were powerful, and when used by the right senior resources who set up the right sourcing events, these platforms generated amazing results, but they were very difficult and time-intensive to use compared to an e-RFX or e-Auction platform. The model had to be set up. RFX data had to be imported. The data had to be validated and cleaned. The model was then run, altered, and re-run until an acceptable baseline was found. Then multiple what-if scenarios were run until a final award scenario was identified. Then the award scenario had to be exported to the sourcing platform so the suppliers could be notified and the contract(s) drafted. All of this was very time consuming. As a result, the platform was not useable across the sourcing organization, was not very affordable as it had to be supplemented by other sourcing platforms, and this process was definitely not efficient.

For mass adoption of optimization, it needs to be supported by an RFX and/or an e-Auction platform for data collection, by analysis and reporting for result presentation and exploration, and needs to be integrated with contract management and the supplier portal for negotiations and communication. In other words, optimization is the engine that powers the modern sourcing platform, it is not a stand-alone solution.

That’s why a modern optimization-based Sourcing platform, and not a standalone optimization module, is the silver lining that Procurement has been waiting for. What does this platform look like? Stay tuned!

Optimization: What’s changed since 2009?

If you’ve done your research you have likely figured out that it requires a PhD to use optimization. That it is so expensive it should only be used by experts for high value categories. And that the time required to set up optimization for a sourcing event prevents you from using it for more than a handful of events.

All of the above statements were true in 2009. But these statements are completely false today, and have been false for a while now.

Let’s take them one by one.

Optimization requires a PhD.

Modern tools do not require a PhD, a Masters or even a Bachelor’s Degree. A properly designed optimization solution should be usable by junior buyers as it should hide the complexity and simply provide one-click evaluation. With built-in rules, workflows, wizards, templates, and other modern usability features, optimization can be as simple to use as an e-Auction on an average category for a junior buyer.

Optimization is very expensive.

While it used to be the case that optimization solutions were expensive, sometimes costing six (or even seven) figures for a single event, this was pre 2010. Today, mid-sized organizations can receive 40 events with unlimited users for that or unlimited events for a small number of users. Take your pick.

Optimization makes a sourcing event very time intensive.

Modern tools have intuitive web-based workflows to make event creation a task conducted in minutes. While it might take a long time to set up a complex event with dozens of suppliers, hundreds of line items, thousands of lanes, and hundreds of constraints, not all events are that complicated. Many categories are only bid to a few suppliers, need to be shipped using the two or three existing contract options, and don’t have a lot of constraints. This allows the model to be set up, the data imported, and a baseline solve completed in a matter of hours, not days. Moreover, if the model is set up as a template, it can be copied and reused over and over again, and setup is a matter of minutes. Done right, optimization decreases the amount of time it takes to set up a sourcing event by a factor of two or even three or four.

In other words, optimization has become mainstream and should be considered a default strategy for all sourcing events. And what does a modern solution look like? That’s the subject of our next post.