Category Archives: rants

Sourcing Innovation is all for Rank and Yank in Procurement!

In particular, SI is all for yanking anyone who suggests that the right way to manage talent is to yank out the worst performers in your organization on an annual basis.

This is another prime example of a consulting cock-up from the Big 5/6 who also brought us (often courtesy of the Board of Directors, as per yesterday’s Procurement Damnation post) baseless outsourcing, unnecessary asset liquidation, and the contingent conversion.

While the doctor is all for the reassignment, or, if necessary, the removal of labour that’s not cutting it, arbitrarily hacking the bottom 10% is the dumbest move you can make. Not only does it ruin your reputation (which is why, on Glassdoor, only 62% of current and former employees would recommend Amazon.ca, which employs the rank and yank strategy, as opposed to Google which is recommended by a whopping 92% of current and former employees), but it ruins your future results.

For example, let’s say a new CPO comes in, does a deep performance review across the talent base and removes the non-performers from the organization (either by having them reassigned to another department or retiring them). If everyone who is left is a performer, arbitrarily removing the 10% of the lowest performers in the following year is equivalent to hammering a nail in her coffin with her in it.

To clarify this, let’s say the department has ten employees including three senior buyers, two intermediate buyers, two junior buyers, one full time spend analyst, one full time relationship manager, and one full time contract and compliance manager. If the performance measurement is geared towards identified savings, because the directors are dictating savings, after two years, the relationship and the contract and compliance manager will likely be gone because, doing their jobs properly, they are not identifying savings but ensuring savings identified by the buyers or analyst is realized. In fact, even if each role has its own scorecard, due to the fuzzy nature of what a relationship and compliance manager will due, it’s still quite likely that whoever fills these rolls will rank quite low and be at risk of getting the axe.

But if they don’t get the axe, then, chances are the junior buyers will because the intermediate and senior buyers, who will be more educated and experienced, will able to skew their projects and results to the performance metrics they are measured against. And that’s equivalent to the CPO nailing her coffin while she is in it because, at some point, the senior buyers are going to retire and need to be replaced by the intermediate buyers who will need to be replaced by the junior buyers, who will need a few years to become intermediate — which means that the organization will never see any junior buyers advance. (As it will be cycling a new junior buyer in every year as it cycles one out every year.) As a result, in the long term, the organization will slowly run out of intermediate, and then senior, buyers and results will diminish rapidly — to the point where all employees are equally poor, returns are dismal, and there will be no difference between cutting the bottom 10% and cutting everyone.

Get the picture?

So the next time someone suggests that the organization employ a rank and yank strategy to get better results from its talent, SI strongly recommends that you jump up and say “that’s a great idea, how about we start with you” as you hold open the door!

Authoritative Damnation #63: Board of Directors

Do we even need to say more? The Board of Directors can be your best friend, or your worst enemy. But either way, they’ll probably be your ongoing nightmare.

Their dictates drive your daily duties even more than the wacky whims of the CEO, because their dictates drive the CEO’s and CFO’s dictates, who in turn drive your daily duties. Do you really think the cost savings chant stems from the CFO alone? A good CFO realizes there are 2 big ways to make more money. Increase revenues — which can come from sales or investments — or decrease costs. An even better CFO will realize that you only have to do so much to appease Wall Street and will want to do whatever will increase revenues in the future, because that will increase the stock value, and fatten his nest egg when he sells out and retires (from the company). But if the board chants “savings, savings, savings“, his hands are tied and he will have to do his best country boy jig.

But it doesn’t necessarily end their. We all know that if this was the extent of the damnation caused by the directors, it would barely qualify as a damnation at all. Where do you think the outsourcing craze (and craze is the proper word) came from? The lease versus buy at any cost (because ownership is maintenance and maintenance is supposedly bad) craze. The move to contingent labour (because, apparently, benefits are bad too) craze. Just about any non-sensical craze you can think of usually originates from the wacky whims of a helicopter board member.

But it doesn’t end there. The board is also responsible for forced entry into markets. Forced entry into new product categories. Forced (use-my-buddy-Bill’s-business-or-else) supplier selection. And so on.

Director damnation is it’s own kind of damnation and sweep it under the table we shall not! Especially when this is one of the few damnations on our list that makes the eighth circle!

In Sourcing, B2C cannot replace B2B, but B2B can learn from B2C.

As long as it doesn’t go app crazy. For years the doctor has been hearing about how mobile is the next big thing in Procurement, and even though mobile hasn’t really caught on, now a handful of vendors are staring to talk about how apps are the next big thing in Procurement. This is a bit ridiculous. When it comes to Procurement, there’s not an app for that. Can you really get market intelligence from an app? Can you really do spend analysis in an app? Can you really do should cost modelling in an app? Think about what “apps” on your “smart”phone really do. Take a few notes. Convert a few units. Play a simple game. Check your bank balance. Store your boarding pass. Simple, discrete tasks. Nothing about strategic sourcing or enterprise Procurement is app friendly.

But enough ranting. Today’s post is about how B2B can learn from good B2C technology. In particular, how B2B can learn from B2C for:

  • total purchase cost calculation
  • order and requisition management
  • collaboration management

These days, thanks to a number of web sites, consumers are becoming smarter when it comes to analyzing the total costs associated with big purchases like cars and houses as a number of sites, including AAA/CAA and BoA/CMHC, have calculators that allow the buyer to understand the total cost of buying, and maintaining, the vehicle or house they are considering including taxes, insurance, and other incidental costs. These consumers, who are not experts in car or house buying are using templates built by people who are experts to do total cost calculations.

B2B Procurement can learn from this and create sourcing and procurement platforms that come with built-in cost model templates for common categories of direct goods and RFX templates that can be used in sourcing common indirect categories to ensure that the organization asks the right questions, collects the right costs, and makes the right decision. The reality is that across an industry, indirect spend categories are common and there’s no reason that an organization can’t source a solution with pre-built templates for the common indirect categories it sources, which will likely constitute 90%+ of indirect spend. Unless the category is high-dollar, there’s not much point paying a large amount of money to a third party organization, even if the third party is an expert, because it is not likely that the savings will be enough to justify the cost. For most indirect categories, this is likely to be the case.

In 2009, AMR did a study that found that, in an average organization, 30 cents to 40 cents of every negotiated dollar of savings never hit the bottom line. There are a number of reasons for this which include, but are not limited to expedited shipping, volume increases, and maverick spend. In many cases, the biggest culprit is the latter — maverick spend. Maverick spend typically happens because a purchaser is unaware of a contract, unaware of how much it costs to buy off contract, or frustrated with the difficulty of buying on contract with current systems. (It can also be the case that the purchaser doesn’t care because they’re not in Procurement, but this usually isn’t the case.)

This situation can easily be rectified by incorporating some features of best-of-breed consumer shopping technology, such as that employed by Amazon.com, that not only allow a buyer to find the product or service they need, but see which of those are on contract. In other words, just like a search on Amazon.com can find all instances of that book you want, and, if you desire, only show you those eligible for Prime, a Procurement platform that enables a buyer to find all instances of a product they are searching for in an integrated catalog that contains all products and services available from approved vendors — whether in a punch-out site, an online database, or an offline catalogue (maintained by Procurement) — and see which of those are on contract can enable on-contract requisitions and purchase orders. Plus, since it will be easier to buy on-contract than to buy off-contract, there will be a lot less circumventing of the system.

And when it comes to collaboration, B2B can actually learn from best-of-breed professional, and even social, networks and communication platforms. For example, Linked-In not only allows a user to post their resume and connect to fellow professionals, but it also allows them to join discussion groups that allow them to post relevant information on a topic and comment on it. And sites such as join.me and Webex allow for real-time virtual meetings and collaboration.

Incorporating these types of technologies into a Procurement Project Management program allows for collaboration to not only take place on line, but all collaborative communications to be maintained and archived in the platform. This not only helps with conflict resolution, but it goes a long way to preventing disputes in the first place as the platform captures all communications and allows each party to see what it agreed to.

B2B technology can be improved by taking the best B2C innovations and appropriately incorporating them into B2B platforms, but it has to be done intelligently. Not all consumer technology is B2B appropriate, especially if it was designed for C2C purposes, and apps are prime example. However, as it has historically been the case that many innovations start in the consumer space, it’s no surprise that B2B can be improved by appropriating appropriate consumer technologies. It just has to be the right technologies appropriated in the right way and put to the right use.

There’s Nothing Wrong With Using Upstream vs. Downstream

Only with trying to fix a continuous process to a discrete point in time.

Confused? Let’s back up. Last Friday the doctor‘s co-conspirator in the definition of Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) went on a rant about the use of upstream and downstream without a paddle in contract management. In his Friday rant, the maverick claimed that if you put supplier management in the upstream bucket, you’ve violated the whole naming convention and that upstream can have a time dimension to it and represent earlier processes, but it can also have a supply chain connotation and represent multiple tiers farther upstream in the inbound supply chain – working back to raw commodities. So, it’s confusing in that regard in terms of time vs. space. However, the maverick‘s biggest gripe seems to be it puts the signature of the contract artifact as the singularity of the procurement universe – sort of like using B.C. and A.D. to define world history to non-Christians.

So what? We need a way to measure time and a milestone against with to measure progress.

As humans, we don’t know exactly when we first evolved (or, if you follow a religion based on a form of creationism, were created), so we can’t choose that date as a reference point for a precise timeline. We barely have decent records back to 0 AD, and if we go back more than a few hundred years beyond that, we don’t really have enough to establish a good date system. So the date chosen is just as good as any other date during that period.

Similarly, if you look at the full contract lifecycle, just when does the project start? When is the first analysis or opportunity identification performed that leads into the business case. Hard to say. We know the date a sourcing project is approved, but just like 0 AD, before that gets a bit fuzzy, but there could still have been significant events that led to approval which are really part of the Procurement process and which should not be overlooked just because a date can’t be fixed. Similarly. When does it end? The date the contract officially finishes? The date the post mortem is done? The date a new contract is signed? The date the switchover actually occurs to a new supplier? The date the supplier is officially retired from organizational service? Hard to say.
So choosing the date of signing as a reference point is a logical choice for dividing up the process and English commonly uses the same word to mean different things in different contexts so there’s no reason it shouldn’t be clear when someone is talking about upstream in the contract/category management process and upstream in the supply chain. (After all, we live with sourcing and sourcing in Procurement is much different than sourcing in HR.)

In other words, the definitions make sense and since they are now commonly accepted, let’s not bicker about how they are defined but about how some providers and analysts tend to misuse them by trying to fix-point activities that actually need to occur throughout the process, like category management, supplier management, compliance management, and risk management. Use upstream and downstream to indicate when particular activities in a process should occur, not to categorize processes that exist simultaneously with the contract lifecycle, and that build off of the primary artifact, the contract, in new and interesting ways (when done right).

Not everything fits in a one or two dimensional model, and we need to be prepared to accept the true complexity of the situation. That’s why many tenders these days are complex and why organizations that don’t have spend analysis can’t identify the inherent complexity and why organizations that don’t have strategic sourcing decision optimization can’t adequately deal with the complexity. Just like the world is not flat, neither is the sourcing model or the necessary execution process that follows. A spreadsheet won’t cut it and neither will point-in-time processes. However, we still need fixed points in time to measure against (forward and back), and at least the date a contract is signed is a point in time everyone across all departments in the organization can agree on.