Category Archives: rants

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.

Engaging Stakeholders – It’s as Easy as Corralling Cats!


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 Joe Payne, Vice President of Professional Services at Source One Management Services, LLC.

A few weeks ago I was giving a debrief to the Manager of Indirect Spend for one of our customers. The engagement was winding down, and I asked the manager if there were any other categories they needed help with that we hadn’t already looked at. “No” he said, “I think we’ve covered everything.”

Up to that point, I knew we hadn’t worked with their IT department at all, so I asked about potentially discussing telecom or managed services. “Oh, I stay away from that side of the building”, he exclaimed. “Those guys don’t even speak the same language.”

As more and more CFO’s and CEO’s realize the value in creating sourcing departments to control indirect spend, sourcing teams are finding more and more end user resistance to their involvement in the supplier selection and supplier relationship management process. In nearly every organization I’ve worked with, there are groups or divisions that don’t want help from sourcing and prefer to manage supplier relationships on their own. Getting stakeholders to engage can be difficult, but is it really as hard as corralling a cat? Well, let’s look at the similarities:

Cats don’t want to be corralled. Stakeholders do not want to be engaged.

“Sorry I missed your call, please leave a message…”

When you begin to corral a cat, their first instinct will be to cautiously avoid you – but they probably won’t run away. When you first attempt to engage a stakeholder, they will do the same.

“I’d love to meet to discuss my requirements; unfortunately I have a full plate this summer. How does next year look for you?”

When you show a cat you are not going to give up until they get corralled, they will become finicky and potentially aggressive. When you continue to pursue an end user, they will attack.

“What makes you think you can do a better job than I did? What do you even know about this subject matter?”

Lastly, just because you are successful in corralling the cat does not mean they are going to cooperate. Give them any opportunity, and they will escape. Once a stakeholder agrees to proceed (usually after being told to by their boss), you can expect:

“Sorry I missed your call, please leave a message…”

Which takes us full circle.

So, what is the value that sourcing can bring to stakeholders and end users, and why is it so difficult for them to recognize that value?

First you have to remember that practically no one in IT, Marketing, or HR was hired based on their ability to run an RFP, write a contract, or perform a negotiation. They were hired to ensure infrastructure uptime, get the company’s message out, or keep employees happy, respectively. They aren’t focused on cost and most of the time they don’t care about cost. There is no question that lack of training, lack of time, lack of market intelligence and lack of focus will lead to higher price – sourcing brings these tools to the table.

Second, stakeholders typically don’t properly manage vendors, track spend or validate compliance. Without a watchful eye, suppliers either get demotivated or greedy. This leads to either very upset or very rich suppliers. Sourcing offers a clear process and communication hierarchy, the ability for incumbent suppliers to expand services or solicit feedback, and spend consolidation and rationalization opportunities – it improves supplier relationships while keeping costs in check.

Third, even when a stakeholder is upset with a supplier, they will continue to use them. When speaking to end users, I am often surprised by how much they dislike an incumbent, but still continue to work with them. Sourcing brings an independent (and objective) third party to the table that can act as the “bad cop”, pushing a supplier to improve or else replacing them with someone better suited for the requirement.

So if sourcing can bring all this value to the table, why do stakeholders often fail to recognize it?

The answer to that question can be a little more complex, but for the most part it boils down to one thing – purchasing is a personal subject! Think about it – whether you are at home or at work, you want to get a good deal. When you buy a new car, you aren’t going to tell your friends and family how you got ripped off – you are going to tell them you got a great price, and you are going to hope that is true! The same can be said, and normally is exacerbated, in business. If you are responsible for managing a million dollar plus budget, the last thing you want is for people in the company to think you are paying more for goods and services than you should. Having a sourcing group come in and save 30% is the same as having your brother-in-law swing by the car dealer and get the same car for $5K less – it hurts.

Sourcing organizations now have a unique challenge. The thing they were hired to do – get savings – tends to be the easy part of their job. Competition always exists and technologies are always improving – finding a lower price is not difficult. The hard part is finding a stakeholder in the organization that recognizes sourcing is just as valid to them as any other support service, and has the wherewithal to use your group effectively.

To date, I’ve never seen it happen without a strong top down mandate, and it is costing companies millions every day.

Corralling Cats
Thanks, Joe!