Category Archives: rants

The Supply Chain of Supply Chain Talent is Not Only Broken … It’s Running On Empty!

A recent article in Forbes noted that The Supply Chain of Supply Chain Talent Is Broken, which it is, and has been for well over a decade. The problems started back with the global first world truck driver shortages back in the early 2000s, but the real problems were much deeper and hidden from view due to the fact supply chains were otherwise running smoothly and no one was looking behind the curtain or shining a light into the dark recesses of the supply chain.

Why? Because of the rampant digitization of procurement, logistics, and supply chain over the past twenty years, a time when globalization reached its peak, conflict was at a minimum, inflation was in the rear-view mirror, and natural disasters were still manageable, supply chains just worked. Predictable processes, routes, costs, and flows allowed simple systems to manage the supply chains almost automatically. Supply Chains didn’t need traditional supply chain talent to run; they needed buyers, logistics managers, inventory operations, and compliance personnel who could use systems — IT geeks ruled the day!

At the same time, seasoned supply chain professionals — negotiators, logistics professionals, and inventory/warehouse managers — were retiring in droves, and no one was replacing them. More importantly, no one was replacing them because there was no perceived need. These were the individuals who where doing supply chains in the 80s and 90s, before modern systems managed everything, when there were still lots of regulations to deal with (as the EU was still forming), when you didn’t always have container ships available (or easy container transportation to all locales), and when you would have to know, by rote, who to call when a truck wasn’t at the factory or the dock for a pick-up. When you had to do everything by phone and fax, because email was a luxury; when you had to deal with dozens of import/export regulations (and know how to create the reports by hand), and how to manage logistics scheduling on paper, especially when availability of certain carriers or personnel would change by the day. When you had to truly know how supply chain operations worked end to end, and not just push buttons on a virtual screen.

But then they retired, and no one replaced them. Even worse, no one was recruited to replace them. The organizations saw no need, since the systems did everything, the EU and harmonized regulations across regions made trade easy, and the big global carriers managed logistics for them. As long as they had negotiators, system operators, outsourced carriers, and outsourced consultants to do the rest, who cared? They certainly didn’t.

Furthermore, because there was no need in the organizations, people who studied Operations Research and might have went into Supply Chain went elsewhere, and as demand shallowed, so did students, but more importantly, so did apprenticeships. Now, with disruptions on the rise, globalization retreating, inflation resurging, supply chains breaking due to slowdowns, (port) shutdowns, and double canal slowdowns/closures (Panama and Suez), and current systems not designed for the world today, there’s no one who can handle the current situation. And that’s why supply chains are broken, talent chains are broken, and most importantly, why they are empty.

All of this happened behind the scenes because no one was watching, no one was thinking about the future, and no one was doing a risk assessment or managing the risks that were destined to come. All despite the fact that natural disasters were on the rise, political tension was on the rise, and we were being warned that a pandemic was the top global risk for over a decade.

Now we are at a point where software alone won’t fix this, consultancies who don’t have talent either (despite telling you to go to China for two decades) won’t fix this, and hope won’t fix this. The only thing that will fix this is the re-introduction of supply chain apprenticeship programs, as noted by the Forbes article, along with the return of retirees with actual knowledge to mentor the new recruits, which is missed by the article. Most organizations, or consultancies, these days barely have enough talent to manage their own operations yet alone train a batch of new recruits on the side, especially if they didn’t live through the rise in global trade in the 80s and 90s. The retirees did, and they have the knowledge the consultancies, and modern systems, don’t. Along with new recruits, it is their (temporary) return that is needed to fix the supply chains.

Thank you Vladimir Putin!

Thank you Vladimir Putin for saying what needed to be said.

(Open/Gen-) AI is dangerous. Very dangerous! And something needs to be done about it!

“Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest developments in genetics or in AI. One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons, all nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized that negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction.

It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI, or genetics, or any other fields, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.”

Transcript

I don’t know about you, but with respect to what has been advertised, these are the six variants of Open/Gen-AI the doctor sees:

Gender/Race-Biased: especially in HR; it’s trained on “good resumes”, but, guess what, when those “good resumes” were selected from a pool of hired candidates that have predominantly been white men, guess what the AI looks for?

Hallucinatory: too many stories to track now of AI creating fake summaries on fake articles by fake authors for which it created fake profiles; Lawyers have fall for this multiple times!

Harmful/Hateful: train it on open data which contains hate speech, just like a kid exposed to its first profanity, it mimics … non-stop

Murderous: multiple examples of self-help chat systems literally telling people to kill themselves (and then a few examples of people actually doing this) as well as self-driving systems ignoring the “shadows” of what were people RIGHT in front of them

Sleeper: the newest threat, sleeper behaviour that can go undetected for days, months, or years until a specific date or phrase is entered (in combination); the perfect sleeper agent!

Thieving: not only are these open AI plays generally trained on stolen data, but since all your queries and outputs are directly used (or indirectly influence) the network, they steal your data (even when the designers didn’t set about to do so)

Only Half Of Organizations are Concerned They’re At Risk of Greenwashing. What are the other half smoking?

A recent press release from Ivalua over on the Supply Chain Quarterly site stated that nearly half of organization are concerned they’re at risk of unintentional greenwashing and that 48% of US organizations are very confident they can accurately report on Scope 3 emissions.

This falls into the same category as half of Procurement leaders expect their budgets to increase and 9% of companies claim to be ready to manage risks posed by AI … ridiculous.

The 52% that feel that Scope 3 reporting is a ‘best-guess’ measurement have it right. There isn’t a single carbon calculator (service) offering that is accurate. Some aren’t bad, and a subset of these will meet the baseline requirements for carbon reporting, but even those that make the baseline cut for reporting aren’t as good as you think. The majority of these work by using country-industry averages computed by third party institutes and agencies, which are then multiplied by the estimated total volume of product coming from the country-industry average adjusted. It could be totally accurate, or it could be totally inaccurate if your supplier is using a significantly older production line technology and using dirtier energy than its peers or, in the best case, was the first supplier in the region to update its production line, switched to primarily renewable energy sources, and found a way to recycle water and minimize fresh water usage.

Plus, with no clear guidance on how to properly calculate your e-Liability, how do you know that you are truly accounting for all of the carbon you are responsible for (in terms of products, logistics, services, etc.) while not taking on carbon that belongs to your supplier (that they are trying to pass on to you).

Also, if you’re passing on your calculation to a third party, or even worse, to a supplier, how do you know that, if there are multiple potential third party region-industry estimates to choose from, that the third party isn’t choosing the absolute worst (so you will believe you need their carbon reduction consulting services) or that the supplier isn’t choosing the absolute best when answering your RFX (when neither of these estimates are correct).

The reality is that, even if you use a third party, your scope 3 calculations are acceptable (but not necessarily accurate) approximations at best, but likely of little value the majority of the time and your true knowledge of whether or not your supplier:

  • uses renewable energy
  • recycles or minimizes (fresh) water usage
  • uses efficient production processes that minimize direct (production) and indirect (energy and [fresh]water) carbon
  • actively looks for ways to be sustainable

doesn’t exist unless they have been audited on-site by you or a third party service that you trust. And accepting anything less is accepting greenwashing (or some variant of) to some degree.

And the only way you are truly going to reduce your Scope 3 is to:

  • minimize demand for consumables, and use as many renewables as you can
  • focus on renewable, or at least recyclable, content in your products
  • work with suppliers to optimize processes
  • invest in suppliers (possibly through long-term contractual commitments) to upgrade to modern processes that will minimize their carbon production
  • etc.

Roughly Half a Trillion Dollars Will Be Wasted on SaaS Spend This Year and up to One Trillion Dollars on IT Services. How Much Will You Waste?

Before we continue, yes, that is TRILLION, numerically represented as 1,000,000,000,000, repeated twice in the title and yes we mean US (as in United States of America) dollars!

Gartner projects that IT spend will surpass 5 Trillion this year. When you consider that 30% of IT spend is usually for software, and that one third (or more) of software spend is wasted (for unused licenses, which is why we have a whole category of IT and SaaS specialists that analyze your out-of-control SaaS and software spend and typically find 30% to 40% overspend in a few days), that means that roughly half a trillion dollars will be wasted on software this year.

Even worse, Gartner projects that spending on IT Services will reach 1.5 Trillion. And the waste here could be two thirds! Now, we all know that you need IT services to implement, integrate, and maintain those IT systems you buy. But how much do you need? And how much should you pay? Consider that an intermediate software developer should be making 150K a year (or 75/hour), that says that an intermediate implementation specialist shouldn’t be making any more than that, and not billed at more than 3 times that (or 225/hour). But how much are you being billed for relatively inexperienced implementation consultant, with maybe a few years of overall experience and maybe six months on the system that you are installing? the doctor knows that rates of $300 to $500 are not uncommon for these resources that are oversold and overcharged for.

But this isn’t the worst of it. As per our upcoming article Fraud And Waste Are Not The Same Thing, many implementation “partners” will try to get all they can get and make sure that when you go in for a penny, you go in for a pound and they will push for:

  • frequent change orders during implementation, usually billed at excessively high day rates as they have to “divert resources” or “work overtime”
  • unnecessary customizations or real-time integrations that are an extensive amount of work (and cost) when out-of-the-box or daily flat-file synchs are more than sufficient
  • extensive “process evaluation” or “process transformation” processes that are well beyond what you need to eat up consulting hours
  • extensive “best practice” education when your practices are good enough for now and/or those best practices are already encoded in the system you just bought and paid a pretty penny for and just following the default process gives you the same education

That will often double to triple the cost. But that’s not the worst of it. As per comments the doctor has made on LinkedIn, he regularly hears stories of niche providers losing 200K deals because customers said their quote was too low because all the Big X companies quoted over 1,000K for what should be 100K worth of work in their view (and, right or wrong, if a niche firm comes in less with a detailed proposal, they should be evaluated — maybe the Big X, with a very general request, over estimated your requirements and the effort, or maybe the niche firm completely underestimated it — how will you know if you don’t evaluate all the responses?). Literally. This is because, as the doctor has noted in previous posts and comments on LinkedIn:

  • they don’t have always have the talent in advanced tech (and even The Prophet has noted their lack of talent in areas of advanced tech in multiple LinkedIn posts, though he has been much more diplomatic than the doctor in discussing their lack thereof; but he did note in a 2024 advice post that consultancies are going to have a hard time attracting talent this year) — for every area, an average firm will have a team leader who’s a superstar, two or three handpicked lieutenants who are above average, and then 20 to 40 benchwarmers who are junior and not always worth the rate they are charging);  now, as with every general observation, there are exceptions (with some Big X recently acquiring a number of best-in-class technology, analytics, and AI vendors that give them top-notch world class talent, and others actively recruiting top talent form the best tech firms, but every firm is different, and, most importantly, every need is different — it’s up to you to fully qualify your need, review the proposal carefully, and vet the proposed talent, otherwise, it’s your fault if you overpay, fail miserably, and don’t get value
  • some of these firms have an incredible overhead — they got big in good times and built posh offices to house the partners making more than top lawyers who have a lifestyle to maintain (or, in some cases, they just acquired expensive real estate in premiere locations)
  • they don’t always have the knowledge of, or experience in, modern tools — some of which are ten times more powerful than last generation tools; this, of course, means that, in these situations, Big X benchwarmers are using last generation tools which take ten times the manual labour to extract value from
  • etc.

Unless you want to pay 1K an hour, at some of these firms, you’re not guaranteed getting that one superstar resource trying to be the front end to two dozen projects that his three lieutenants are trying to manage, all of which are staffed by junior to intermediate individuals who can barely follow the three to five year old playbook.   (While if you chose a different Big X firm that just acquired a whole consultancy with dozens of top analysts, it’s a different story.)

There’s a reason that The Prophet predicted in his 9th prediction that SaaS Management Solutions [will] Start to Eat Services Procurement Tech and that many companies will go in house if they have tech expertise. Because he realizes that these consultancies will have a hard time not only hiring, but retaining, tech talent when they have hiring freezes, salary freezes, and reduced engagements as more and more companies can’t afford the ridiculous rates they’ve been charging recently. (Companies may not have had a choice during COVID where it was implement on-line collaboration and B2B tech or perish, but now they do.)

But there are still many companies who will, when they encounter a (perceived) tech need, immediately pick up the phone and call their favorite Big X firm and bring them in to help them understand who to bring in for an engagement, instead of widening the net to niche providers who might be 3 to 5 times cheaper, and who will deliver results at least as good, if not better, or, if their proposals won’t cut it, will validate when that multi-million proposal is a great value and will deliver the expected ROI.

Now, again, the doctor would like to stress that, despite how much he insists they are usually not the right solution for specialist advanced tech implementations that aren’t the enterprise systems and suites they usually implement, that Big X are not all bad, and sometimes worth many times more than the high fees they charge. [See when should you use Big X?] Most of these companies started off as management/operational/finance/strategy consultants and grew big because they were one of the best, and in certain domains, each of these companies still are. As they grew, they added more areas and became experts in those.  But no company can, and should, be expected to be an expert in everything!

And while there will be exceptions to the rule (as every one of these companies has some tech geniuses), the reality is that when you need more bodies than there are talented bodies in an entire industry, you’re not going to get them and, because consultancies are not cool when you want to be a tech superstar (and join a startup that becomes a unicorn), the ratio of superstar to above average to average to below average talent in these organizations is much thinner than in multinational tech companies (like Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, etc.)  (Because if they were the best of the best, there’s no way they’d lay off 10,000 employees at a time every time the market jitters.)

In short, manage that IT services spend carefully, or you’ll be double paying, triple paying, or worse and providing a big chunk of the roughly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in IT services overspend that the doctor predicts will happen (again) this year. (Unless, of course, you agree with Doctor Evil who says, why make trillions when we could make … billions. Because that’s exactly what happens when you overpay for software and services. Don’t expect the Big X or Mid-Market to say anything as they get the majority that overspend, and that’s how they stay so profitable.  Plus, they usually need those revenues to deliver what you’re asking for, as ill-defined projects mean they need to make a lot of assumptions and often over engineer to decrease the chance you will be disappointed in the result!  In other words, if you overpay due to your lack of research and preparation, it’s on you. )

Forget Consequence Free. I wanna be Gen-AI Free!

To the tune of Consequence Free by Great Big Sea.

Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Na na-na, na na na-na na na!

Wouldn’t it be great,
if no one ever was redundant?
Wouldn’t it be great,
if we made all the decisions?

I’ve always said,
All the rules are made for bending.
And if I did the right thing,
What’s wrong with that vision?

I wanna be Gen-AI free!
I wanna be where humans always matter.
I wanna be Gen-AI free!
And say: Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Oh! Na na-na, na na na-na na na!

I could really use,
To lose my ethical conscience.
Cause I’m getting sick,
Of feeling angry all the time.

I won’t abuse it,
Yeah I’ve got the best intentions.
For a little bit of anarchy,
But not the hurting kind.

I wanna be Gen-AI free!
I wanna be where humans always matter.
I wanna be Gen-AI free!
And say: Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Oh! Na na-na, na na na-na na na!

Oh! I couldn’t sleep at all last night,
‘Cause I had AI on my mind.
Why can’t we leave it all behind,
You know it could be that easy.

It just takes one person
Wouldn’t it be great,
If the CEO made that call
We could do the work,
And we would never get the slip.

Wouldn’t need to worry about illogic or bad data.
We could slip off the edge,
And never worry about the fall.

I wanna be Gen-AI free!
I wanna be where humans always matter.
I wanna be Gen-AI free!
And say: Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Oh! Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Oh! Na na-na, na na na-na na na!

the doctor, while an early adopter of SSDO, rule-based RPA, Machine Learning, and other “AI” technologies, is serious here. Gen-AI is garbage at best, bull crap the majority of the time, and toxic waste when it fails. What other technology produces hallucinations, hate speech, and hot (as in stolen) data on a regular basis? What other technology has literally convinced people to commit suicide?

It’s not ready for prime-time, and may never be. Go back to carefully constructed NLP solutions on carefully designed data sets that actually work. We don’t need Artificial Idiocy where you need more training in prompting to have a chance at solving a problem than developers need training in coding to write a reliable deterministic algorithm that actually solves the problem. Sure it seems to work “okay” 90% of the time with normal usage, but what about that 9% of the time it doesn’t or the 1% it fails so drastically it could cost you millions of dollars in direct and indirect damages? Is it worth it? (The answer is NO!)

Some light reading. More can be found by Googling Gen-AI Fails and similar search terms.