Category Archives: rants

Procurement is Still in the Technology Dark Ages

A recent post over on Deal Architect discussed how, despite claims to the contrary by recent analyst firms, most organizations are still in the technology dark ages, and this goes double for Sourcing and Procurement.

Not only is it the case that most organizations do not have modern e-Sourcing and e-Procurement platforms, but many are still stuck on outdated MRP and ERP systems that actually hinder, instead of help, Supply Management.

Consider the plethora of problems with ERP systems that often make it worse than not having a system at all:

There is generally little requisition management and no sourcing / tender / RFX support. In an ERP the process starts with a purchase order, flips into a goods receipt, and, maybe, just maybe, correlates with an invoice for payment.

There is generally little support for any type of real analysis. There is usually a built-in report library that has a few standard reports on suppliers, products, bills of materials, invoices, and payments.

There is only one schema, and it generally doesn’t lend itself to any particular form of analysis, reporting, or inquiry beyond the built in reports and any sort of global trade analysis, import/export analysis, tax analysis, or tariff analysis is just a pipe dream.

There’s a reason that Sourcing Innovation recently blogged about how hose that still rely on ERP could end up in the supply chain disaster record books and that is because ERP systems are not a supply chain management platform. But it, and maybe a few free web tools, are the best many organizations still have, and that has to change.

Especially when many organizations still pump millions of dollars into these platforms that don’t adequately support Procurement, don’t adequately support Sales, and don’t adequately support modern logistics and inventory management in the age of 3PLs (third party logistics) and VMI (vendor managed inventory).

Investments need to be made in the right products and platforms that serve the core needs of each department, starting with Sourcing and Procurement.  And there are plenty out there.

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.