Category Archives: rants

To Solve the Talent Crisis, Think Different!

We have a talent crisis across the board in Supply Management and Supply Chain. We shouldn’t have a talent crisis, but because of continual short-sightedness in industry and government, we do.

And at this point I should probably end the post because by now the average person who stumbles upon this post is probably screaming that it’s not our fault, because we value talent, we have great education systems, and we’re trying hard to fix it, etc. etc., but it is our fault. Why?

Every year we rank talent in the top 3 issues. And every year, as our hopes and dreams that strong growth and stability will return get slashed by reality, the first thing we do is cut the training budget. And then, when we realize that there’s too much to do with too little people, we cut professional development time and ask people to work overtime on tactical tasks that add nothing to their skill set. And the cycle continues. So, in the corporate world, we cause our own chaos.

And then, when we have millions of people out of work, with thousands willing to retrain for better jobs, we limit unemployment benefits and make it almost impossible to get money for professional and degree programs. And I’m not just talking scholarships or sponsored training, I’m talking loans that many of these people would be willing to take, and carry for years, just for the opportunity to acquire a skill set that will see them working again. So the government is doing nothing to actually fix the situation. Governments have to guarantee loans for education and they have to subsidize living costs for workers who need retraining if their future earning benefits will limit the ability to repay very high loans. But that’s another issue for another post.

The point that needs to be harped on is that, as an industry, we’ve created our own mess, and we perpetuate it every day. As the job of Supply Manager gets more and more demanding, the response I’m seeing is “We need a talented, educated, skilled individual with a Masters Degree in Supply Management, who speaks three languages, has experience with MRP, ERP, and best-of-breed technologies, has sourcing expertise in three categories across five verticals, has managed 100 Million dollar projects, is trained in negotiation, etc. etc. etc.”. And, in the end, we have a set of requirements that maybe 6 people in the world can fill because ( a) it’s way too much for one person and ( b) the company has never bothered to train anyone internally with even half the skills it wants.

If a company instead took care to appropriately define a set of reasonable job descriptions that would cover all the necessary skills, and then identified internal candidates and trained them for those positions, they would have half the battle solved. Then, if instead of looking for someone for the role who had all of the skills, looked for someone who has the education and experience to quickly learn all of the skills with the mentorship of the people trained internally and a few focussed professional development courses, I’m convinced half of our talent crunch issues would magically disappear over night. (The logistics half would still be an issue because we have the image problem associated with warehouse and trucking jobs in this economy. Because we don’t view those jobs as highly important and an honour to hold, as the Mexicans do [which is why I’m okay with giving them our trucking jobs], convincing people to even consider those jobs will continue to be difficult.)

And then, as this recent article over on the HBR network on how workers with disabilities solved Gitanjali Gems’ talent problem, we never take the time to realize that someone else’s island of misfit toys might actually be filled with the resources we need to do the job. Now, I agree with Charles’ that Supply Management has traditionally been the island of misfit toys in an organization, and that is a big problem, but the reality is that if someone is skilled in X when organization Z needs Y, that person will be a misfit toy in organization Z. The best candidates for a Supply Management job are often people in engineering, high tech, medicine, (bio) chemistry, etc. who know the details of the category that need to be sourced, and the challenges that are involved, but who are not necessarily the best people to be building the projects or doing research. Just like some of the best sales and marketing people in high tech are people with CS degrees who learned to code, figured out that they weren’t very good at it and/or didn’t like it very much, but that they understand inherently what could and could not be done and the relative amounts of effort different commitments to a customer would carry. In IT, many R&D misfits became marketing marvels.

In the case of Gitanjali Gems’, they needed cutters. This is a skill that takes training and time to acquire, and a big money commitment from an employer. So they need to find people with interest, aptitude, and loyalty, as they’d lose big financially if they lost people to the competition as soon as they reached their productive potential. So they looked to people with real disabilities, and found that the attrition rate was 10 times lower, the productivity was 30% higher, and the overall working atmosphere became one where people “felt good” when they went to work, making them want to work even more. In my book, this far outshadows the additional benefits they received from the government (which ends up paying about 15% of the salaries), and the good press they get for the initiative. Because the company found people who wanted to work, and gave those people the training and tools they needed to be successful, the people enjoyed working for the company, worked 30% more productively, and stayed around a lot longer. Which shows that the talent crunch is solvable, if you just get up and actually do something about it.

The Best Way to Insure Routing Guide Compliance …

… Is to be clear about who is routing what! I must admit that, after reading a recent article three times over on Inbound Logistics on ensuring routing guide compliance, I’m still not exactly sure who the article is for.

Generally speaking, a routing guide contains a set of rules intended to govern how all shipments being sent to a company’s facility are to be handled, and what costs the company is willing, and not willing, to incur. Based on this, it seems logical to assume that a routing guide is for the benefit of a company’s suppliers, and that it is the suppliers, or, in some vernacular, the vendors, whose compliance needs to be insured.

So, when the article starts off by saying that when vendors fail to comply with shippers’ routing guide instructions, all parties involved experience frustration. Huh? Isn’t the vendor doing the shipping by way of a carrier? I guess, in this context, “shipper” means “buyer”, but the buyer might be nothing more than a consignee, with the vendor doing all the shipping arrangements and a 3rd party doing all the transportation. Maybe it’s acceptable lingo in the old-fashioned logistics world, but if you want to reach supply management at large, let’s be clear who’s who.

Now, if we make this assumption and move on, replacing “shipper” by “buyer” in the first nine tips, everything sort of makes sense, but then tip 10 refers to the situation when a customer is late ordering a product. What customer? No where is customer mentioned up to this point! Does it refer to the “buyer”, known as the “shipper” (even though the buyer isn’t “shipping”)? Or the buyer’s customer? And why is the buyer’s customer allowed to order direct? If we assume that “customer” refers to a buyer “representative”, then this makes sense, but, at least for me, this is an even bigger stretch than assuming “shipper” and “buyer” are one in the same.

But the confusion doesn’t end there! If we then examine the tips, we are told to be upfront about chargebacks, which is a must, but the chargebacks referred to are actually fines levied by the “shipper”, who we are assuming is the “buyer”, to the vendor for non-compliance. This is a little confusing for two reasons. First of all, the standard definition of a charge-back is the return of funds to a buyer after a successful dispute. This is not the return of funds paid by the buyer (or “shipper”) to the vendor for an un-delivered or defective product, but a fine levied on the vendor for failure to comply with a buyer (or “shipper”) policy. This is not a chargeback. Secondly, in this situation, the money changing hands will be between the vendor and the 3rd party logistics carrier, and it is the vendor who will be seeking a chargeback if the logistics carrier screws up. Right?

And then, a little later on, we are told to divide carriers into categories by mode and weight breaks. While it’s useful to know what carriers offer a given mode, the volume brackets that define LTL (Less-than-TruckLoad) and TL (TruckLoad), and which carrier is the most cost effective within a mode and volume bracket, this is of no use to a vendor who does not know what mode a product should normally be shipped at, and the conditions under which an exception should be made.

And if a buyer really wants to ensure routing guide compliance, it’s not that hard to do so. All the buyer has to do is inform the supplier of the default shipping method it wants used and the alternate shipping methods that are acceptable if the default shipping method is not available. If the buyer takes the uncertainty out of the equation, the vendor will get it right. And this is not hard to do if the buyer has an on-line, searchable, routing guide integrated with its e-procurement system where a link to the appropriate mode and carriers, for the volume level, is included in the e-version of the purchase order. One click, and the vendor knows exactly what to do. If the PO, or on-line routing application, also includes the contact details for an appropriate contact person in case of questions, or unexpected issues, as well as a link to information about obtaining approval for expedited delivery and selecting the appropriate method for expedited delivery if need be, then there’s no reason that a vendor shouldn’t be able to get it right.

In summary, here’s the doctor‘s top 10 tips for ensuring routing guide compliance:

  • Keep
  • It
  • Simple
  • Stupid
     
  • And
  • Supply
  • Suppliers
     
  • With
  • Information
  • Needed

Canadians Beware! Harper Wants to Throw You In Jail For Clicking a Web Link!


Prescript: It seems that the USA and Mexico are also in these talks and that all North Americans are in jeopardy!

Now that you’re back from summer vacation, take note. Harper wants to throw you in jail just for clicking on a web link! If you were paying attention, back in June the Huffington Post ran an article on the trans-pacific partnership and how Canada would fall into [an] ‘Internet Trap’ under the Asia trade deal. As per this article in the Huffington Post in July, the 13th round of negotiations closed on the TPP in July, and thanks to Harper, we have now entered a new world of threats to our digital rights.

Although we don’t have access to the current, official TPP draft, a leaked agreement would give big media new powers to lock users out of their own content and services, and to shut down websites and remove content, thereby blocking users and entrepreneurs from enjoying the benefits of the open Internet. In addition, negotiators are talking about creating a dispute resolution process that would grant big media and other corporations special authority to challenge state law, regulations and court decisions in international tribunals.

But an even scarier aspect of the working draft is that it would criminalize some everyday uses of the Internet, including mash-ups (combining different media works to create a new one) and small-scale downloading of music. Under this agreement, there is no distinction between commercial and non-commercial infringement. This means that if you break a digital lock to copy a song for personal use, [you] could potentially face the same criminal sanctions as someone who copied songs to sell pirated music!
Plus, it would force service providers to collect and hand over your private data without privacy safeguards, and give media conglomerates more power to send you fines in the mail, remove online content — including entire websites — and even terminate your access to the Internet. And if you still don’t believe this is a bad thing, consider this — China, which was traditionally considered one of the most oppressive countries in the developing and developed world, is not part of the talks. In other words, the agreement is so oppressive that even China won’t touch it with a 10-foot pole!

And it’s all Harper’s fault that our rights are under threat! We weren’t supposed to be part of the TPP negotiations, and Canada was only admitted to these negotiations after the Harper government lobbied for two years to admit us. That’s right — Harper lobbied to have us admitted to a negotiation that wants to give corporations the power to be your judge, jury, and executioner on the internet. All I can say is, after you have signed the petition to Stop the Trap, that you remember this come election time!

Not Criminal, But it Should Be!

I gotta stop reading, or I’m gonna be more of an angry dad than angry dad Homer and become the Homer Hulk. What’s making me red with rage or green with gall this time? This recent report on Packaging World that “America Trashes 40% of Food Supply”.

How can this be? Food reserves are at an all time low; almost 1 Billion people, including almost one third of children in developing countries, are malnourished and hungry; and the cost of staples is rising to the point that people are rioting in some developed countries because prices are getting to the point where many low income families can no longer afford to put the basic staples on the table. All this in a time when world agriculture produces 17% more calories per person today than it did 30 years ago, despite a 70% population increase. This is enough to provide everyone in the world with at least 2,720 kCal per person per day – which is 30% more calories than the average person needs. In other words, if (North) Americans (and other people in developed countries) weren’t so damn wasteful, we could, in all likelihood, feed the world!

According to the article, which is summarizing research from the Natural Resources Defense Council. Given that getting food to our tables eats up 10 percent of the total U.S. energy budget, uses 50 percent of U.S. land, and swallows 80 percent of freshwater consumed in the United States, we should not even be wasting 4% of our food supply, yet alone 40%! Not only is this costing us $165 Billion that we should be using to ship excess food to those in need, but the rotting food is emitting almost 25% of U.S. methane emissions.

According to the article, reducing losses by just 30%, which is a drop in the bucket compared to the level that the losses should be reduced by, could feed more than 50 million Americans. Given that one in six Americans lack a secure supply of food to their tables, this would almost eliminate hunger in America. Drop losses by 80%, which would get them to an almost acceptable level (assuming this was just the first step in an ambitious continuous improvement effort), and that would probably wipe out hunger in the Americas.

And, getting back to the title of the article, any producer, distributor, or retailer of food products that has waste in excess of 10% annually should be fined until waste levels are under that threshold. And then, they should be forced to reduce waste by at least 10% a year for the next five years until a maximum acceptable level of waste, which I’ll pin at 5%, is reached. We can take lean to extremes on the shop floor and virtually eliminate all waste (as everything is reduced, reused, and recycled), so there’s no reason we can’t take it to extreme in the food supply chain either.

Since feeding the world is one of the biggest contributions an organization can make to corporate social responsibility, this should be a top priority.

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.