Your days are numbered …

Your days are numbered …

Reading this recent article on “Mitigating Risk and Exposure from Subsidiary Operations” in Industry Week, one could get the impression that the only way to mitigate risk is to deploy one or more (connected) ERP systems to manage corporate data. Nothing could be further from the truth. While you do need consistent data and compatible systems, you don’t need an ERP. But I guess I should have expected such misleading advice given that the article was written by a VP at SAP, one of the biggest ERP vendors in the world.
According to the article, in order to mitigate risks to the company’s supplier, quality, liquidity, financial reporting, and unbudgeted spending, a company must streamline and automate mostly manual systems to:
Furthermore, according to the article, to accomplish this automation, a company needs to either:
First of all:
So you don’t even need an ERP at all to accomplish the stated goals. Furthermore, while you do need integrated data, you can maintain this data with a simple relational database and integrate it using an off-the-shelf data analysis package with good ETL (extract-transform-load) tools that can merge flat-file data dumps from each system into one file/database for analytics purposes.
This isn’t to say that an ERP at headquarters to maintain master data isn’t worthwhile, just that you don’t need one, and that you certainly don’t need ERP deployments at all of your subsidiaries to accomplish the goals, which is important because enterprise ERPs generally cost seven figures and the cost is generally not justifiable for a small subsidiary.
… and rarer still are instances when you should pass on these candidates. A recent post over on the HBR blogs that asked if you “should hire an overqualified candidate” made some great points about the assumptions made by Hiring Managers when presented with “overqualified candidates”, and hinted at a few others.
Most Hiring Managers misunderstand what overqualified is
A candidate is only over-qualified if they exceed the skill requirements of the job. This means that the following candidates are not overqualified:
Today’s job definition will not be tomorrow’s job definition.
Business is evolving as rapidly as the technology that drives it evolves, and this means that the requirements for a role are no longer static. If the job responsibilities are evolving rapidly, you will need a candidate with more education, skills, and experience than the job requires today to keep up.
There’s nothing stopping you from paying a candidate what he or she is worth.
Maybe you planned to pay 60K, but if you get a candidate who is so perfect for the role that he or she will be twice as productive, and you can get that candidate for 90K, you’re getting someone who can do the work of two people for only 75% of what it would cost you to hire two lesser skilled candidates.
Just because a candidate is overqualified doesn’t mean that he or she will be bored or move on quickly.
This particular misconception drives me nuts. Some jobs are always challenging. Like sales. You never know what the customer is going to want. Or development. Technology is always changing and you never know what new technology is going to pop up that you will have to integrate with or what new bug will appear in the next release that you will have to track down.
Not every candidate wants your job.
Not everyone wants to be the boss … and, in fact, a candidate who has been the boss and decides that she would rather spend her days getting work done instead of fighting fires, going to a never ending stream of management meetings, and micro-managing lesser qualified employees who can’t keep on track without constant guidance is less likely to try and take you job than an overly ambitious over-achieving up-and-comer. If you create the right position for the individual with the most impressive non-boss title you can give them, pay them well, and free them to do what they want to do, they will likely be more than happy to leave you to you own personal boss-hell while they build systems that work, successfully source strategic categories, and design and implement new processes for efficient operations.
Bottom line, there are very few overqualified candidates and fewer still who would not make a good hire if you pay them well and give them the opportunity to shine (because most people would rather complete a task and have a sense of accomplishment than “be the boss”). So if you get a very qualified candidate, the first thing you should do is get her in for an interview before the competition does — because she is the type of candidate you want.
But, as far as I am concerned, the specifics are still in question. Over on Software Advice, Michael Koploy recently published a post on “2011 Market Trends: Procurement Systems” where he noted that the six trends he’s following, namely:
With respect to the first four, he’s definitely right. After 2-3 years of spending freezes, and displacement of seasoned pros from big shops to mid-tier shops, pent-up demand is nearing an all time high. Also, a lot of shops, especially in the mid-tier, have figured out that they’re not IT, shouldn’t try to be, and want the IT to be someone else’s headache. Today’s generation of workers expects usability, and won’t settle for anything less. And with continuing pressures to cut costs (or lose your job), a number of organizations are finally getting behind strategic sourcing, even if they’re not entirely sure what it should mean to them.
But I’m not sure about the last two. Yes, demand for “BI” and “Analytics” is up across the board, but I’m not still convinced that most organizations have any clue whatsoever as to what real “spend analysis” is.
Spend analysis is:
But when most people make their purchase decisions, this appears to be what they are evaluating based on what they buy and how they implement.
Then there’s Contract Management. To be useful to Procurement, a Contract Management (CM) has to do more than simply store and index contracts for easy retrieval. While it’s important to be able to quickly put your finger on a contract when a dispute arises, that’s not management. That’s e-filing. In the context of Procurement, true management is tracking purchases against the contract in near real-time and insuring that before an invoice is paid, it’s paid at contracted rates. This requires some integration of the CM system with the e-Procurement and/or e-Payment system.
So far, most CM systems are still being bought stand-alone or loosely coupled.
In other words, demand for Procurement Systems is up, but not always for the right reason. And this includes demand for new reverse auction features. I’m getting tired of repeating myself, but I guess I have to say it again.
Listen, bub, a reverse auction IS NOT an advanced sourcing application. If you want real savings, you need a decision optimization system.
It seems that analysts across the board are finally recognizing the need for good data analysis. For example, this recent article in Industry Week on “mastering complexity, driving out complication”, notes that what most manufacturers are missing today is an adequate way to analyze and interpret collected data in terms of what are the potential impacts and risks on the business. Add this to all the articles preaching the need for spend analysis to get direct, indirect, and logistics costs under control, and one sees that the need for analysis across the board is now ubiquitous.
But yet only a small number of companies have solid analytical tools. Most companies still don’t have basic spend analysis applications that allow them to see where their organization spend is going. Far fewer still have Enterprise Manufacturing Intelligence (EMI) applications. But until there are data analysis applications across the supply chain, significant cost-saving opportunities are going to go unidentified. So when will analysis be ubiquitous? How many more years are we going to have to wait?