Category Archives: rants

There’s Something to Be Said for Private Equity

And the ability to tell Wall Street to take a hike. I was absolutely disgusted when I read this piece on the intersection of Wall Street and Private Equity with the Supply Chain and saw the following:

one large retailer had the opportunity recently to save an expected $50 million from a supply chain network redesign project, included shifting from a number of smaller distribution centers to larger ones. The project had a great ROI and the capital was available — but the company delayed the project just because of the potential for Wall Street to view the project as too risky operationally and financially.

There’s wanting a good Return On Assets and then there’s pure stupidity. What do you think this is an example of?

Share This on Linked In

Are You Ready for Your Talent Shortage?

Don’t be fooled by the current economic environment, there’s still a global talent shortage and we’re headed towards an impending crunch because the talent war is going to heat up again along with the recovery. And chances are that you’re going to be on the losing end according to some recent research from TopGrading Solutions. (Tip-of-the-hat to Kevin Cornish.)

According to the research, 67% of currently employed personnel surveyed will be looking for new opportunities once the economy picks up. That’s right, if you’re an average company, when the economy recovers, you can expect that two thirds of your workforce will be looking for work. If you thought you had turnover problems before, you ain’t seen nothing yet. Why? Well, if you’re an average company, you cut your staff by 10% to 20% and pushed those that remained to their limits with pay cuts and unpaid overtime. That’s why over 78% of employees do not feel that they were treated well (enough to stay in their current position).

All I can say is that you better get started on your succession plan. Given that there’s a 4 in 5 chance that you’re going to be hit by an internal talent shortage real soon, I don’t think you can afford to turn a blind eye to the issue any longer. Good luck!

Share This on Linked In

There are Analysts and There are Analyst Firms … Guess Which One You Really Need to Understand?

Recently Dan Gilmore, Editor of Supply Chain Digest, published a “first thoughts” piece on Understanding Supply Chain Analysts. In it he made a number of valid points, including:

  • Analysts can provide useful information and insight
  • Analyst research / opinions can have a significant impact on how a company views specific technology vendors and options.
  • Technology vendors often change product roadmaps and messaging to match what they think the analysts want to hear.
  • Some analysts are primarily vendor focussed on their client base while others are “consumer” focussed and others still sit somewhere in the middle.
  • Most analysts today will not write any “negative” research/opinions on a specific vendor for fear of the fire and brimstone it would bring.

The last point is both scary and true. Printed negative opinions in the analyst community are going extinct. However, negative opinions are still strong in many of the top analysts in our space. So what gives?

What gives is the analyst firm. Today, most of the top analyst firms frown seriously on quoting or printing any negative opinions and, in some case, have steadfast policies banning the public iteration of a negative opinion about any past, present, or potential client in fear of the fire and brimstone wrath that could result in the termination of funds or, where some of the more successful analyst firms are concerned, a frivolous lawsuit against their flush bank account.

Before you engage an analyst you need to understand, at a minimum, the following about their firm:

  • Revenue Model: Vendor-Driven, Enterprise Buyer Driven, Consumer Driven, or some combination thereof
  • Management Team: Primarily Former Analysts or MBAs
  • Ownership: Management &/| Employees, Private Equity, or Public Equity
  • Clients: Who are they?

Why? Each of these will have an impact on organizational policy and, as such, on the analyst focus and their freedom of speech. For example:

  • Vendor Driven Revenue Model
    The analyst firm will likely be very careful in what it allows to be conveyed about any of its clients.
  • MBA Management Team
    The analyst firm will likely be more focussed on profitability metrics than on quality research.
  • Private Equity Ownership
    The bottom line will likely be the most important success metric the analyst firm is judged against.
  • Vendor X is a Client
    Any “research” produced will likely echo the importance of whatever the vendor says in its marketing and positioning, regardless of what is said.

In comparison:

  • Consumer Driven
    Since none of the vendors being reviewed are clients, and since the analyst firm’s revenue will likely be linked to the credibility of their research, the analyst firm will be less likely to censor itself.
  • Former Analyst Management Team
    The analyst firm will be more focussed on quality research than on profitability metrics.
  • Employee Owned
    The analyst firm does not have to meet external success metrics and can set their own agenda.
  • Vendor Y is not a Client
    The analyst firm does not have to worry about subscription renewal fees.

Essentially, if you understand the firm, you understand the level of trust can you put into an analyst report and, more importantly, the level of openness you can expect if you engage the analyst in a one-on-one conversation. In the second case, a good analyst will likely give you the full monty.

Share This on Linked In

One out of Eight Organizations Get It. What Do We Do About The Other Seven?

According to AMR’s latest research, summarized in this piece on “driving supply chain transformation through the Chief Supply Chain Officer”, only one out of eight organizations have a CSCO, CPO, or equivalent that reports directly to the CEO.

The supply chain is the life-blood of a modern company but seven out of eight companies still don’t have a C-suite leader?! This is just crazy. What can we do? If you have any ideas, I’d love to hear them!

Glad To See I’m Not Alone On My “Don’t Be Dumb” Bandwagon

As my regular readers know, after the recession started, I tried my best to convince anyone who would listen not to be a dumb company until I was blue in the face. As I predicted, I wasn’t very successful (as I lost track of the number of companies who put new solution acquisition on indefinite hold and of the number of smaller solution providers that put new development on indefinite hold), but I was still glad to see this recent article in Industry Week on “how leading companies will thrive after the recession” which said that some companies will emerge in a downturn in a better position than their competitors and start to outperform them because they have a commitment to innovation and a drive to become immersed in emerging growth markets.

The truth is that without investments in innovation and new markets, growth will stall even as the economy rebounds. I understand that less business means less revenue which means less money in the corporate coffers, but this doesn’t mean you cut the innovation budget. If money is really tight, you reduce the innovation budget in line with other budget reductions, but you don’t cut it. You cut the non-essentials like the box at the ballpark, the Nascar sponsorship, the deadweight middle management, and — even though you’ll despise me for saying this — your bonus. I strongly believe that management should not get big bonuses during times of poor performance. (However, congruently, I also strongly believe that management should be entitled to big bonuses during times of record growth because I believe management bonuses should be based on the overall corporate performance they drive.)

The simple truth of the matter is that innovation must be a priority, no matter the economic outlook because the right innovation will drive growth even in a down market. The article gives two examples of companies, namely Snap-on Tools and Makita, whose sales are increasing because their products match what consumers want. If you can find a way to give consumers want they want with higher quality and lower cost, they will switch to you, even if your product is considered a luxury. Although they are more thrifty, consumers will still treat themselves in down markets — just not as often.

Share This on Linked In