Category Archives: rants

Relative to Procurement Tools TCO

Rant on blogger, rant on along
Rant on buddy till the day is through
Rant on brother, sister too
Rant on momma like I asked you to do
And rant on fellow blogger, rant on (Rant On!) 


Today’s guest post is from Ron Southard, the founder and CEO of SafeSourcing Inc, a provider of SaaS e-Procurement solutions.

The single most significant obstacle to improvement, whether personal or professionally, is indecision, so my rant this month is relative to companies that suffer paralysis through excessive analysis when it comes to making a decision about using e-procurement tools. Too many times companies spend excessive amounts of time trying to understand or figure out procurement tools and their TCO, ROI, and CBA etc. instead of just making a decision to try something.

It really is that simple to just DO something! Make a decision already!

It is just so easy to get started with these tools today, that the above will become obvious almost immediately.

There are way too many buzz words and acronyms being thrown around when trying to decide on an e-procurement platform. As such, companies waste way to much time and money trying to understand the complexity of these tools rather than the simplicity they create in helping you and your team in executing your job.

Way too many retail companies spend way too much time meeting, talking, planning, evaluating, designing, trying to implement and then complaining about their procurement solutions. They also spend way to little time DOING. Many of these companies do not have the procurement tools, personnel or the collective capacity driven by both in place in order to compete with the big category killers in any industry (you already know who they are). So here’s a unique chance to DO SOMETHING, ANYTHING. Because the more you talk, plan and evaluate the more behind you will get. And here’s another unique thought, KNOWING is not DOING! Just make a decision.

Just because you have heard about all of the tools available to you today in the form of SAAS, IAAS, PAAS or AAAS (also none as XAAS) all delivered via the CLOUD, does not mean you know how to use them or the strategies required to make them a recurring part of your sourcing strategy and tactics. That is why they all end in the letter (S) which stands for service. And you better believe that service is defined differently by almost every solutions provider in the e-procurement space. The tools are at least 80% the same across the board, and will all drive results. The best results however will come from the companies with the best services attached to those tools. Tools that make customers say, “No one else will do the things you do for us”. The good news is that the CLOUD and all of the AAS’s mentioned above simply means that you can begin as soon as tomorrow. And, there is very little risk. So why do all of the analysis? Just make a DECISION to do something.

It’s really not that hard. Here’s what you need to do. Find a cloud based e-procurement solutions provider with all of the AAS procurement solutions and ask for three references (CEO or CFO). If the references come back as excellent, give the provider a category or two to source for you ASAP. They will probably agree to not charge you if you don’t save at least the cost of the event (cost neutral). The chances are you will see significant results in less than two or three weeks and the payback (see title) will astound you. If it doesn’t, you can turn them off (a benefit of the cloud) and begin with another immediately (another benefit). Perhaps you could even have a bake off with two or more solution providers. It’s just that easy.

If you don’t use e-procurement tools today, you are way behind the curve. The early adopters have done moved on to more sophisticated offerings. This is now a regular part of how they run their business. The good news is you can catch up quickly (another benefit of the cloud and XAAS). Don’t let the clouds and financial acronyms and all the AAS’s get in the way of a decision. Just make a decision.

See. It’s really pretty easy.

Thanks, Ron.

The Lost Art of Account Management


Rant on blogger, rant on along
Rant on buddy till the day is through
Rant on brother, sister too
Rant on momma like I asked you to do
And rant on fellow blogger, rant on (Rant On!)


Today’s guest post is from Dan Kane, a Project Analyst at Source One Management Services, LLC.

In today’s information age, businesses are gaining unparalleled access to data from their suppliers. However, this new focus on a customer’s ability to access account information on their own has had an unexpectedly negative effect on the quality of supplier account management, and the ability for customers to get assistance from their account management team. This issue is especially prevalent in the technology, and financial industries, where complex issues can require multiple points of contact, and significant end-user involvement before they can be resolved. In part, this can be attributed to increasingly complex products; however a large part of the blame rests with the organizations themselves, and a new-found reliance on automation, and customer self-service. While it is understandable that not every supplier representative is versed in every aspect of these specific solutions, it is imperative to the management of a customer relationship that businesses are provided a single point of contact with whom issues can be addressed.

Problem resolution can often take the form of education, by making sure that customers have the knowledge required to access information on their own, and understand the products and processes involved with their partners. This method has yet to be widely adopted, and account managers tend to refer questions to complicated service guides, or online portals, without the instructions on how to interpret these complex, customer-facing tools.

Some functional separation is fine, and many suppliers are attempting to provide account representatives who can completely manage services provided to national organizations, however it is important to note that a single “contact” should not be SINGLE PERSON on whom organizations are completely reliant on, Situations out of the individual’s control, such as sickness, can arise and leave an organization with no recourse to solving their problem.

Few things are more frustrating to businesses than calling for support, spending 10 minutes on hold waiting to get connected, finally reaching an operator who refers them to a single person for help, and happens to be out of the office.

The necessity of accessible information should not be a reason to diminish the functionality of account managers. Even if the information that a customer wants is available to them, the purpose of management is to identify solutions to problems, and assist customers with the tools that they may or may not know are at their disposal. It is counter-productive to decrease the level of live, human support in exchange for automation, and the self-serve environment that many organizations are migrating to.

What ever happened to the delicate, human touch, and a little thing called customer service?

Thanks, Dan!

Frack the Fines! Make the Frackers do the Time!

I know it was only a month ago that I was advocating the No-Maximum Mega Fines, but I’m now of the opinion that it’s not enough. First of all, in most circumstances, the fines are not anywhere close to keeping pace with the magnitude of the ill-gotten gains the corporate fat cats are often making when they choose to break the law. And, secondly, since the dastardly are often convinced that they probably won’t get caught, and, if they do, it will be so far down the line that they will already have made, and covered up, a fortune and the losses won’t come close to equaling the gains, they’re not going to stop unless things change significantly.

So what really grinds my gears this time? Why do I want to go all Stewie on their backsides? And throw psycho kitty into the boardroom? (Warning: Links Probably NSFW) This recent article in the Economist on an unsettling settlement where Standard Chartered agreed to a rapid settlement of the case brought against it by the New York State Department of Financial Services that alleged Standard Chartered had illicitly processed at least $250 Billion in transactions with Iran between 2001 and 2007, in (flagrant) violation of American sanctions against Iran.

In other words, if you cough up a big enough chunk of change, and agree to the installation of a monitor in its New York branch to evaluate its money-laundering controls, you can get away with pretty much anything.

Now, it might be the case that not all of the 250 Billion in transactions were illicit, as there may have been some transactions with similar characteristics that got caught in the initial sieve, but state departments are not likely to claim more than they think they can prove, and collect on. I wouldn’t be surprised if there were 200 Billion in illicit payments, and that the bank made around 4 Billion (or more) on these transfers, given usual currency conversion and wire fees, and that the 340 Million represented, at most, 10% of the illicit gains.

But it’s not the fact that the agreement didn’t wipe out all the illicit gains that is making me mad, but the fact that this is clearly a situation where someone repeatedly did something they knew they should not be doing (and thus settled quickly to avoid trouble). Now, it’s one thing if someone does something wrong and doesn’t know it, which is getting more likely by the day in a global multi-national when new laws are coming into effect all the time and it’s almost impossible to keep on top of everything, but it’s not going to be long before someone in legal or risk or compliance notices the infraction and brings it to the organization’s intention. At that point, the infractions should end, or the individual who continues to commit the infractions should be criminally prosecuted. Until the day comes when the worst that will happen to you from knowingly breaking the law behind the corporate veil is a small fine to your company is replaced with automatic criminal prosecution for your crime, nothing is going to change.

In summary, all I have to say is that Skid Row got it right when they said to tear down the rat racial slime and that Halestorm was right to echo their belief and the need to tear this thorn from our side. These rat bastards, who fly in the face of all that is good and just, need to be to be taken down a peg or two and do some hard time. If they knowingly violate contraband laws, embargoes, or laws meant to enhance national security, they should be convicted of treason and sent to maximum security. Because, until that happens, they’re going to keep flaunting the law for the almighty dollar.

Why does everyone look to disqualify when they should be looking to qualify?


Rant on blogger, rant on along
Rant on buddy till the day is through
Rant on brother, sister too
Rant on momma like I asked you to do
And rant on fellow blogger, rant on (Rant On!)
 Disqualified!

Today’s guest post is from William R. Dorn Jr (Bill Dorn), the Vice President of Operations at Source One Management Services, LLC.

In the last year, I’ve been pretty active talking about one of my favourite topics, “What Not To Do” when conducting a strategic sourcing event. I’ve blogged about it on multiple sites, spoken about it on several guest podcasts, have a chapter in our book about it, and Joe Payne and I even lightly discussed the topic on a morning television news show in Arizona (which I doubt more than five people tuned in for). So when the good doctor told me he was inviting guest rants this month, I knew what I was going to scribble about. But then, I started to think about it a bit more. I think I’ve said enough on the topic, and I think there is an even more basic premise that deserves attention. That premise is: Why do people in business look to disqualify something when then should be looking to qualify it?

I’m sure we’ve all heard the following lines come out of our colleague’s mouths before: “We did that before it didn’t work“, “It’s always worked until now; why would we change it“, “Our staff doesn’t adapt well to change“, “Let’s just push this through for now and look at the alternatives another time“, “it wouldn’t work here“, “we’re not ready for that“, “it’s not really practical here“, “we don’t have the time“, “it costs too much“, “it’s not in this year’s budget“, “we’re too busy“, or the one I hate most “our company (or our requirements) is different“.

As consultants, there really is not a day that goes by that we don’t here at least one of these classic lines from one of our clients. As procurement or supply chain professionals, you probably have all heard one of those dreaded deal breakers right when you thought you had a really creative solution, technology, or vendor that could have helped your business.

But, did you realize that a large portion of you are doing exactly the same thing during your sourcing process? You probably aren’t aware you are doing it, as it’s not as direct as the examples above. And in many cases, it’s really not your fault; you’re just following a procedure, policy or e-sourcing software template that was written in stone before your time. What I’m talking about is a sourcing process that looks to disqualify instead of qualify.

Let’s really look at your sourcing process, whether it’s the Supplier Discovery, RFI/RFQ/RFX/Reverse Auction, or whatever you call it. Does it have questions that really serve any purpose other than to disqualify? Why are those questions included? Chances are, they are simply there to help take a long list of potential suppliers down to a really short list, in order to make the review, selection and award process easier and quicker. Well, we all know that easier and quicker is not always better, but this often gets ignored when it comes to doing work. Here are just some examples of what I’m referring to:

  • Is your company ISO certified? Questions like these (the hard YES/NO), especially used in conjunction with automated rating and scorecarding tools in e-sourcing systems are a huge pet peeve of mine. First off, is the ISO certification even relevant to what’s being sourced? In most cases, it’s not. Secondly, it leaves no margin for answer. What if you are going through the process but will not be certified until next month? What if you are not ISO certified, but are certified by a similar industry specific association, like QS? “Well, we didn’t ask that. You’re disqualified.”
  • We recently responded to a large RFP that had a short deadline. One of the requirements of the RFP was that the response was received electronically and in hard copy, no later than 2:00 PM on a certain date. The company we responded to acknowledged receipt of the submission, but FedEx was actually late in delivery of the hard copy, 2:37 PM to be precise. The prospect promptly rejected the delivery and entirely disqualified us from the bid, even though they already held the electronic copy. They never even opened the bid. We’re not the only ones either; I talked to others who responded that had the same thing happen, all because of a storm that delayed FedEx by a few minutes. In this case, a ridiculous policy had a company throwing away potentially the best possible suppliers without even reviewing their submissions. In other words, “Oh, you’re human and a small mistake happened? You’re disqualified.”
  • We frequently see RFPs that have a “deadline” for submitting questions. Many of those companies refuse to answer any new question you may have after that deadline date. What does that lead to? Well, it forces suppliers to guess at what they THINK you may need, often missing the mark and often submitting a proposal that doesn’t really address the buyer’s needs appropriately. It’s not that they couldn’t support your need; they just simply misinterpreted your requirements and did not have a fair opportunity to present a proper solution. “You couldn’t read our minds, You’re disqualified.”
  • Do you have on office within 25 miles of our location? Well, no, we don’t but the work is being done remotely, so that should not have any impact on our level of service or price … “Too bad, You’re disqualified.”
  • Here’s a 43 page RFP where every answer is a long-form answer and half of the questions don’t apply to this initiative. You have until Friday at 5 to answer it. “That’s not enough time? You’re disqualified.”
  • You must agree upfront that you will use my procure-to-pay punch-out catalog ordering system. Oh, and the software company that runs it gets a piece of every single transaction. But I still want the best possible price. You want more information or are concerned about digging into your margins? “I don’t understand why you could give me a better price if you didn’t have to pay an intermediary too. You’re disqualified.”
  • We’ve got this great opportunity to ask questions for you. We call it a bidder’s conference. You’ll sit around a table with your competitors and must introduce yourself so that everyone knows who they are competing with. “What do you mean you are uncomfortable doing that? That’s what I want. You’re disqualified.” (This is providing that they don’t drop out themselves as most suppliers do after they have to sit through a circus like a bidder’s conference).
  • “Do you have substantial experience supplying the nano-microorganism plating industry? Provide me with 5 references. You sell office supplies? I don’t see how that is relevant to the question. Do you supply other nano-microorganism plating companies or not? No? You’re disqualified.”

I could go on and on with dozens of examples of poorly written questions or poor methodologies that serve absolutely no purpose other than to disqualify, but I’m already over the doctor’s budgeted word count (I hope he doesn’t disqualify my post for it).*

Now, I’m not saying that some questions and some responses shouldn’t be grounds for immediate dismissal, and I understand that you have to find an appropriate balance of how many suppliers you can review for a spend category, but sourcing and procurement folks really should take a hard look at their processes and really look at themselves to see if they are just as guilty as the naysayers throwing around clichéd business brush-offs like the ones I wrote about above. Are you really offering a warm invitation to suppliers to help improve your business, or are you just schlepping through a dreaded process just to tell your bosses that you “went to market”?

Thanks, Bill! You’re really helping me with my point that many RFX processes are not implemented correctly, especially in technology acquisition at large companies!

*To be precise, Bill is over my suggested word count, which I’m happy to ignore as long as the rant is raving and engaging!

A Shipper’s Right


Rant on blogger, rant on along
Rant on buddy till the day is through
Rant on brother, sister too
Rant on momma like I asked you to do
And rant on fellow blogger, rant on (Rant On!)

Today’s guest post is from Leigh Merz, a Project Analyst at Source One Management Services, LLC.

In late 2009, both UPS and FedEx announced a change in policy when working with third party consultants, basically negating any future negotiations or direct communications with these service providers. This mandate limited shippers to only work with either FedEx or UPS directly as the carriers did not want their so-called proprietary information shared.

UPS and FedEx claimed this change would be in the best interest of both themselves and shippers. In 2010, a parcel consulting firm, AFMS, LLC (“AFMS”), began its fight against this new policy. They argued that both suppliers “colluded to avoid revenue dilution”. In addition, they discussed other antitrust violations that would impact shipper’s abilities to compete its business including:

  1. Suppressed competition among and between FedEx and UPS
  2. Diminished freedom of choice for shippers
  3. Suppressed competition among and between third party consultants
  4. Shippers are forced to pay higher prices

Let’s take a step back. Third party consultants work as an extension of a customer’s purchasing team and do not share any information pricing or other terms with the marketplace. Businesses look to these professionals for market intelligence, assistance in negotiations, to determine if the offer being presented is competitive and fair, and to manage their logistics spend overall. They are not used to ‘beat up’ incumbents or play suppliers against each other and are able to bring the facts to the table.

How long will UPS and FedEx continue to exclude third party consultants? They are positioning themselves as squelching the small parcel consulting and negotiation services market. Also, their unwillingness to play nice only gives leverage to regional players and potential growth opportunities for competitors like USPS. These companies understand businesses needs and rights to engage the experts in negotiations. They are willing to participate in RFX processes and work with whomever the client assigns as their spokesperson. The result is usually an increase in revenue and a commitment for a long-term relationship. UPS and FedEx are encouraging a decline in revenue and potential relationship termination.

Third party consultants are willing to work with UPS and FedEx and will allow them to compete for business fairly and without bias. They will offer insightful information into the customer’s spend profile without sharing confidential information or asking for unrealistic pricing and terms.

On a side bar, AFMS continues to stand its ground waiting for the projected trial in 2013 for a jury to hear its complaint.

Thanks, Leigh.