Category Archives: rants

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.

Should All Service Spend Be Subject to Procurement

Last week, Spend Matters UK ran a great post that asked “why do executives employ their friends as consultants”, which noted that one of the most problematical spend categories is professional services, and in some organizations, this is even more problematic than contingent labour spend, marketing spend, and legal spend. Why? Not only do some executives in some firms often engage senior experts and big 5 consulting firms on six, seven, and eight figure (plus) deals without any notice or without any respect for the process, but they often do so without any background checks or references whatsoever.

Sometimes, as pointed out by the public defender, the consulting firm or expert is being hired because the consulting firm or expert was hired in the past and did a great job, and, more importantly, there is a need for speed.

Sometimes, as also pointed out by the public defender, the budget holder is simply lazy. He knows the consulting firm or expert will do an okay job, and that’s good enough for him.

But sometimes, as documented by the public defender, there is an emotional dependence on the supplier, and that’s a good enough reason for the budget holder not to rock the boat, and other times there is a personal relationship, which is a great reason for the budget holder but not so great for the organization.

And sometimes, as clarified by the public defender, the reason is not a good one, or even a legit one. The budget holder might be making the award on the future expectations of a favour or because of a bribe and/or kickbacks that have been, or will be, received.

But if bribes and kickbacks was the worst situation that could happen, that wouldn’t be so bad. It would just mean that the award was costing the organization more than it should (and maybe significantly more than market average). If the work is quality, and identifies an ROI, that’s not too bad.

You see, if proper process, and due diligence is not taken, the organization could:

  • guarantee a large minimum payment regardless of work quality, completion, or dismissal (such as a 1M payment for early termination)
  • hire someone with a known criminal record for fraud
  • hire someone with known terrorist associations who will try to steal trade secret technology protected under a defence act

And if you think overpaying an average consultant who will take twice as long to produce an inferior result is bad, imagine how much worse each of these situations would be.

So, while maybe it is the case that not all spend should be under the control of Procurement, it is the case that all spend should follow the proper Procurement process under the guidance of Procurement so that all the facts, and options, are available to the budget holder. And since the CFO and CEO can be held criminally liable for certain oversights in the business, they should support this as following a good Procurement process and policy is the best CYA defense there is.

How Do You Value Cloud Services?

The clouds are here to stay. Whether they are dark nimbostratus storm clouds filled with hail or fluffy white cumulus clouds that dot the clear blue skies, they’re here. (That’s why the doctor recently co-authored a series over on Spend Matters Plus with the prophet on Supply Chains in the cloud.) Regardless of the doctor‘s opinion on whether your supply chain should be in the cloud, the clouds are sweeping supply chains up and the situation has to be addressed. (Thus, one has to do one’s best to insure that one’s supply chain is in the way of the right cloud.)

And while you should be well aware by now of how to cost a cloud-based platform, and compare it to a hosted ASP solution and an on-premise solution (as the referenced series and a number of posts here on SI have addressed this issue in detail in the past and even provided you with spreadsheet templates), you might not be aware of how to value a cloud-based solution.

When it comes to the cloud, valuation is a very difficult concept. There’s the hardware infrastructure and the reliability that comes from multiple locations that can store your data and run your applications. There’s the cloud-OS layer that handles real-time on-site and off-site data replication and back-up, automatic start-up of new processes and machines when a process or machine fails or becomes unavailable, automatic allocation of more processors and memory and storage when usage spikes, and so on. There’s the application layer that not only enables your processes but that is accessible anywhere with a data signal on any device your people happen to be carrying, that supports real-time data sharing and collaboration with your supply chain partners, and that supports innovative new capabilities not possible in on-premise apps.

There is a lot of value in each of these layers. Access to more hardware than you need, or can even afford, is valuable. Real-time off-site backup and failover is valuable too – compared to having to manually bring up an off-site location. And a better application with more capability and innovation is valuable too, but just how valuable?

In the traditional hardware world, the cost of filling a data centre is the cost of hardware plus the cost of a network engineer setting it up. Hardware is the cost of production plus a fair margin – there are enough essentially equivalent providers that costs are kept in check.

In the traditional software world, the cost of software is generally computed as the overhead cost of the company that produces it plus a margin that will produce an acceptable margin that the company can get away with based upon the perceived value differential between it and its competition that it can sell.

But the cloud is not set in the traditional world. In fact, the real-tine off-site backup and failover in a virtual OS layer didn’t even exist before the cloud. How much more valuable is having access to as many machines as is needed to power your application at full capacity at all times? While this power is known, failure — be it machine failure, power failure, or communication line failure — cannot be predicted and sometimes the entire application infrastructure must be ported in real time to a different part of the cloud.

And how much more valuable is having software that is maintained and regularly updated by the provider as compared to having software that must be manually updated and kept up by in-house development staff? Especially when that software might be capable of offering more real-time collaboration, real-time product tracking, market intelligence, and analytics than an on-premise platform. This is a much harder question to answer.

But one that should be asked. Just because a cloud solution is the cheapest alternative, that doesn’t mean that you are getting the full value you could be from your money. There are multiple providers, and they won’t all charge the same. Plus, if the technology is relatively simple, if its implemented as a true multi-tenant cloud based platform, and it doesn’t need to be updated very often to meet your needs, then the platform likely doesn’t cost the provider very much and may not have the value the provider claims if another provider offers essentially the same platform for three quarters of the cost.

There are no good answers here, but the questions should be asked and good answers should be expected before you commit to a solution, even if you are a non-profit that was donated a certain amount of cloud services — because you might not be getting what you think and may get hit with a big bill at the end of the year if your acceptance entails an agreement to pay for any usage above the donated amount of services.

Since there are no standards, providers are more or less free to “Value” services anyway they want, make extravagant claims as to support costs, and value a service at 5X its cost, or more. So be careful.

The Song Remains the Same – So Why Can’t We Sing It?

As the world’s second oldest accepted profession (or is it the third as maybe astronomy came first, as we have examples of astronomy dating back 17,300 years), Purchasing should be well understood by now.

Even the first Purchasing Manual, The Handling of Railroad Supplies — Their Purchase and Disposition, written way back in 1887 by Marshall M. Kirkman and printed by Chas, N. Trivess, has the basic definition of the requirements of a purchaser down flat:

The purchase of goods embodies many varied talents and experiences. The ability to buy advantageously, depends largely upon the knowledge of men possessed by the purchaser and his skill in taking advantage of this knowledge. His value will, moreover, be dependent upon the discretion allowed him, and his judgment in exercising it. The position also requires technical skill. The person filling it must be experienced, otherwise his acts will not command the confidence or respect of his associates. His wisdom and fairness must be such that if he selects material contrary to the requisition made upon him, the person thus over-ruled will tacitly acquiesce therein and abide by the demonstration of its wisdom afterwards. (Pages 38 and 39).

Even though today we might write this paragraph as:

The purchase of goods requires talent and experience. The ability to take advantage of supply market dynamics depends on having the appropriate knowledge and the skill to take advantage of that knowledge. The ability to deliver value depends on having the discretion, and authority, to do so. The position also requires technical skill and the ability to use the tools, old and new, provided to the purchaser. Moreover, the purchaser must be experienced and skillful, otherwise others will not respect her decisions. Her wisdom much be such that if she selects new products or services than the ones the organization, and its employees, are used to, the organization, and employees, will understand that she made the best decision taking all of the information from all of the stakeholders, and suppliers, into account.

A few new words, but the same old wisdom. However, in addition to these few new words, now we have to deal with much more complicated words and a plethora of acronyms like:

  • ABC
  • ATP
  • B2C
  • CLM
  • DPO
  • EOL
  • FIFO
  • GRC
  • HIS
  • HTS
  • ITU
  • etc.

that will drive even the sanest of men mad as a hatter. In an effort to capitalize on a newly recognized opportunity, the consultancies have invented a new language to make the simple complex, and the practical improbable, and the vendors have followed suit. The only thing new since the introduction of the telephone is the platforms that exist to support you, powered by the internet and the latest advances in computing technology. So while most consultancies go on and on and on about EQ, you’ve always needed EQ, just like IQ, and the critical factor is TQ. Today’s purchaser requires much more than the ability to use a phone, keep a ledger, add some numbers, create a shipping schedule, and navigate trade law to succeed. Advanced analytics and optimization. Automated workflows and P2P automation. Complex cost modelling and CAD/CAM skills. Not your traditional everyday purchasing situation that existed before the information age.

So learn the tech, and your job will be a lot easier. And keep reading SI which will, as it has always done, continue to alert you to the technology platforms and skills that you need.

What is Procurement Getting in 2016?

A lot of technology is being hyped yet again for 2016. For example, Juniper Research (courtesy of Entrepreneur) says the big trends to expect this year are:

  • Virtual Reality
  • Social Robots
  • Wearable Technology
  • Supercomputer Cell Phones
  • Multi-System Screen Sharing
  • Bitcoin
  • Cloud-Based Video Gaming
  • Professional Video Gamers Make it Big
  • Better Data Protection
  • Crowdfunding

Not only is there nothing new here (as some of this technology has been emerging for over two decades), but there is nothing that really helps business operate better.

  • Virtual Reality can create more immersive training simulations, but most business don’t need that.
  • Social Robots can take the automated attendant to the store, but it’s still just a fancy kiosk.
  • Giving everyone Google Glass isn’t going to make the world smarter (although it may make the NSA happier).
  • We don’t need a super computer in our cell phone.
  • Platform standardization makes multi-system screen sharing easy, especially if you are running virtual machines in the cloud. (And the now defunct SunRay made this a reality 15 years ago.) And if you don’t have the right information in the first place, who cares what screen it’s on.
  • Bitcoin is no more secure than the person holding the key.
  • If Psy’s Gangnam Style has wasted over 16,000 many years by June, 2014 (Source: The Economist), how many million of man years are being wasted by MMORPGs that are emerging in the cloud?
  • What has the world come to when “sport” is playing a video game?
  • Data protection always gets better, and is always better than 99% of people and organization’s need.
  • Crowds aren’t always wise. They have a history of lynching.

And since Procurement is still often treated as the Island of Misfit Toys, if the business isn’t getting anything good, what is Procurement getting?