Category Archives: rants

Are Conferences Perpetuating Supply Chain Stasis?

It’s conference season, and you know what that means. Thousands of people flocking to ISM next week to hear about the “state-of-the-art” practices and technologies that will revolutionize your supply chain, take you into the modern age, and prepare you for what comes next. Except they won’t.

For the average organization that still hasn’t adopted a modern e-Sourcing or e-Procurement system, the technologies being presented by even the vendors who haven’t updated their core platforms since last decade will still be revolutionary and for the average organization that is just dipping their toes into the waters of modern supply management processes, the talks will be inspirational and progressive and, for all practical purposes, look like a transition from the industrial revolution to the information age. (And, for some organizations, it will be. But it won’t prepare you for what comes next.) It will be like seeing the world through rose coloured glasses for four days straight. By the end of the conference, the average attendee will be in awe of the possible and leave in a state of hippie bliss (until he gets back to the office and crushing reality cracks his lenses and he’s forced to again see the cold and depressing blue sky, the blood red losses, and the blackness of the bottomless pit that new ideas get tossed into).

But for a leading organization, the majority of technologies will be outdated, the practices insufficient, and the talks sleep inducing. That’s because, for the most part*, it will be the same vendors as last year, the same practices that were being presented as revolutionary five, if not ten years ago, and different speakers giving the same scripted success talk that you have heard from the leaders who have used these technologies and processes for the last five years.

the doctor downloaded the thirty-four (yes, 34) page “brochure” for ISM and didn’t see one new idea in the entire publication. Not one. Moreover, while a few of the topics only became trendy in the last few years, there appear to be only two talks focussed on TCO (Total Cost of Ownership), one on integrated supply chains, and zero on supply chain modelling.

This is a serious problem. We’ve reached the point where supply chain success for the average organization is becoming dependent on preventing supply chain disruptions and failures. Supply chains span the globe, lean is the name of the game, JiT is widespread, disasters (natural and man-made) are on the rise, margins are thin, and customer loyalty and patience is thinner. It doesn’t matter how well you source if you can’t execute. It doesn’t matter how well you procure if you can’t control your costs. The best laid risk avoidance and mitigation plans are worthless if you can’t monitor for risks and implement mitigation plans at appropriate times. The best spend analysis system in the world is useless if the data is incomplete or too dirty. You can’t optimize what you can’t model. And so on.

Moveover, every savings opportunity you identify at one stage of the supply chain or management process can result in a larger loss at a different stage if the opportunity is not analyzed appropriately. Sure you can save money by consolidating supply, but if a single source is unable to deliver and the organization has to buy on the spot market at the last minute, the 5% savings could be a 10% loss. Reducing inventory can significantly reduce the 25% inventory overhead cost, but could result in stock-outs that lead to million dollar revenue losses if the organization runs too lean and a transportation strike cuts off the just-in-time supply. Better supplier oversight and management can certainly increase quality and reliability, but is the additional cost of the SRM systems and staff to manage the relationship less than the additional value generated?

True value comes from looking at an integrated supply management process, which might take the form of a full category management lifecycle or a complete strategic sourcing execution lifecycle, modelling the physical supply chain and associated costs, and computing the full total cost of ownership of the current scenario and an expected improvement.

But good luck finding anyone who looks at the supply chain as a whole from this perspective, especially when few people will even address the subject.

And this is why the doctor does NOT attend ISM. When you’re trying to identify the next evolution of supply management, or even if you are a true leader, unless you enjoy preaching from the pulpit, it’s a little depressing.

* There will be some exceptions.

The Patriot Act In Layman’s Terms: The NSA Has Your Dick-Pic!

The Patriot Act is due to be reauthorized again in a mere six weeks on June 1, 2015. While no one doubts the importance of this act, or the continued need for foreign surveillance and border security, the act does contain some controversial provisions on domestic surveillance and security. Controversial provisions which, since the act came into law on October 26, 2001, have resulted in one arrest of one taxi driver who wanted to give $8,500 to a known terrorist group. (In other words, the controversial provisions never resulted in the ends they hoped to achieve.)

If no fuss is made, the Senate will just rubber stamp it back into law, as is, on June 1, 2015 and that might be the right thing to do. However, before the Senate does this, every American should decide if that is what she wants and advise the senator she elected accordingly. Because, whether she knows it or not, the provisions of the act not only allow the NSA to essentially tap and store just about every piece of electronic communication created by everyone in the US and by everyone communicating with someone in the US, but it allows the NSA to intercept, store, and view all of your private pictures, including those naked selfies the average American is so fond of taking.

In layman’s terms, if you took a dick-pic between October 26, 2001 and today, the NSA has it and there’s a good chance that someone who was not the intended recipient has looked at it. Listen to the interview below between Edward Snowden and John Oliver (who was the first to put the provisions in layman’s terms) where Snowden not only confirms that multiple sections of the Patriot act give the NSA these rights, but recounts his experience where NSA employees casually shared private pictures of various individuals’ naked parts for fun.

If you are happy with this, then by all means tell your Senator to re-authorize the Patriot act as is. But if you aren’t, tell your Senator that while you fully support the foreign surveillance and border security provisions of the act, domestically, you have a right to your privacy and you would like to see the controversial provisions amended to where the government agencies can only collect your personal, private data with probable cause and a warrant.


 

What do you think of this, LOLCat?


I iz Shocked!

Societal Damnation 45: Lack of Math Competency

Back in 2010, SI ran a post on how This is Scary! We Have To Fix This that referenced a MSNBC article on Why American Consumers Can’t Add that reported on a recent study that found:

  • Only 2 in 5 Americans can pick out two items on a menu, add them, and calculate a tip,
  • Only 1 in 5 Americans can reliably calculate mortgage interest, and, most importantly
  • Only 13% of Americans were deemed “proficient”. That meansless than 1 in 7 American adults are “proficient” at math.

Ouch!

And while Procurement needs to be able to deal from a full deck of skills (and SI has compiled a list of 52 unique IQ, EQ, and TQ skills a CPO will need to succeed which will be explored in future posts over on the new Spend Matters CPO site where the doctor and the maverick are co-authoring a number of series on the CPO job description and the requirements therefore, starting with “The CPO Job Description: An Overview”), many of them rely on math. In fact, with so many C-Suites demanding savings, if a Procurement Pro can’t adequately, and accurately, compute a cost savings number that the C-Suite will accept, one will be tossed out the door faster than Jazzy Jeff gets tossed out of the Banks manner.

However, the United States is not the only country with a numeracy issue. If you review the recent OECD Skills Outlook report that presented the initial results of the global Survey of Adult Skills (that focussed on reading, X, and numeracy), you see that of the 23 countries listed, Australia, Canada, UK, and France, all of which are home to head-offices of global multi-nationals with big Procurement budgets and bigger need for top talent, are all below average with the United States. While over 60% of Japanese adults have a higher level of Math proficiency, in Australia and Canada, it’s slightly over 40% and in the US it’s barely over 30%. However, this still doesn’t meant that these people can do basic calculations required for tips, mortgages, or savings calculations. For example, higher starts at Level 3 (where the survey respondent scored 276 to 326 points) and the description of level 3 is “tasks at this level require the respondent to understand mathematical information that may be less explicit, embedded in contexts that are not always familiar and represented in more complex ways“. Tasks involving multiple steps and problem solving are level 4, and the percentages here are dismal. Less than 10% in the US and barely over 10% in Australia and Canada. (In Japan, it’s around 20%!) This means that less than 1 in 10 adults in many countries have the basic math skills necessary to do mathematically intensive jobs which include the majority of the sciences, economics and finance, and Supply Management!

And performance seems to be getting worse every year. This is not a good sign in an inflationary economy with restricted demand where advanced analysis, modelling, and optimization is required to find efficiency and savings. We need more math, and less electro-mechanical devices that purport to do it for us. (Otherwise, we won’t even be able to compute just how damned we are!)