Category Archives: rants

How Do You Sustain Sustainability When True Value is Long Term …

… and the brunt of the cost is short term?

AlixPartners recently published an article over on Mondaq on how The Fourth Dimension In Strategic Sourcing, Sustainability, Can Drive Value which caught our attention because Sustainability can drive value, but most organizations under cost pressures, which are rampant in our current inflationary economy, don’t choose the sustainable option as it’s typically a higher expense in the short-term.

Moreover, the big value is investing in suppliers that invest in new technologies that will be more sustainable in the long run. However, due to the cost of implementing these new technologies, the up-front costs are higher as the suppliers have to stay in business until the new technologies start to deliver returns. For example, the following are major improvements to sustainability:

  • suppliers utilizing, investing in, or building their own renewable energy grids (solar, wind) to avoid using the energy produced by the local coal/oil burning plants
  • suppliers re-designing production lines and methods to minimize waste (through cutting of metal, processing of food, etc.) and to ensure any waste they create can be used as an input to another production line (melting and re-fab of metal scraps, animal feed, etc.)
  • suppliers investing in their own water purification technology to re-use water in the manufacturing process
  • suppliers investing in product redesign research to minimize use of scarce rare earth minerals/metals and to increase use of reclaimed minerals/metals
  • suppliers investing in reclamation technology to maximize recycling of products created with metals/minerals

… and the following, highlighted in the article, are minor improvements …

  • sustainable supplier selection as everyone is going to try and secure the most sustainable supplier of the lowest cost suppliers, leaving less sustainable suppliers or more sustainable suppliers at a higher cost that the CFO/CEO will not let Procurement pay for the majority of organizations (the small, sustainable, suppliers cannot massively scale overnight)
  • eco-friendly packaging and waste reduction as this is not new and many organizations are already be doing this to the extent eco-friendly packaging is available
  • energy-efficient products and services as this is not new either and as companies replace end-of-life products, they have been choosing more energy efficient products for a while now with the increase in energy prices over the last five to ten years, and the truth is that this is usually a small dent on their total energy footprint
  • carbon footprint reduction as that is the goal, not a specific action that can reduce carbon footprint, and. most importantly, significant reduction requires significant investment (reducing travel and forcing the CEO to give up the private jet and fly first class only goes so far)
  • collaboration and reporting because while you need to understand your footprint, and sometimes shaming goes further than incentivizeation, reporting doesn’t actually increase sustainability unless action is taken …

IF PE firms, with billion dollar funds, won’t actually invest in supply chain (which includes sustainability) improvements, because you typically don’t realize the bulk of the value until you (significantly) pass the five (5) year mark, how can you expect short-term thinking CEOs and CFOs, trying to impress Wall Street or attract PE funding, to actually put their money with their big mouths are and invest in true sustainability?

If you have answers, we’d love to hear them — comment on the LinkedIn post.

Just a Reminder You Get What You Pay For With Second Rate Market Research

While it might not be easy to look at the non-subscriber / non-client prices of a Gartner and Hackett research report or the cost of an annual subscription and say “yeah, it’s worth it“, we’d like to remind you that you get what you pay for and when you pay for cut-rate advice from a generic Indian Research Firm staffed by people who clearly don’t know anything about the Procurement Market and who hire PR people who think it’s a good idea to push their press releases to a website that got its name from a misspelling of Sheldon Cooper’s catch-phrase (from the Big Bang Theory), you’re paying for advice that, if followed, will cost you many times more than what you paid for that “research” when you follow the advice and make disasterous decisions.

So what kicked off this rant? This press release on Benzinga.com by 360 Market Updates on the e-Procurement Tools Market that proclaims to know How the Market will Witness Substantial Growth in the upcoming years. Research over the last decade from Hackett, Gartner, and Spend Matters — where the doctor was a Lead Analyst for six (6) years — have consistently found, and predicted, year over year growth in the 8 to 12% range, at best, across all areas of Source to Pay, a rate that’s no better the consistent predictions of about 11% CAGR for the broader enterprise software market for the current decade, and in some cases worse.  (Note that the doctor is calling out the press release, not the firm.  He’s not going to bother researching yet another firm that offers yet another cookie-cutter report with no clear value if there is no clear press release or website on that value.)

In other words, while steady, consistent growth is expected, it’s not substantial growth under any interpretation and it’s on par with enterprise software as a whole, at best.

But even worse, if you believe the press release, it’s apparently based on a completely random, entirely mismatched, set of “e-Procurement Tool Vendors” which demonstrates almost ZERO understanding of the global Procurement Tools market.

First of all, if you include all of the Procure-to-Pay vendors, there are over 100. SI has listed the majority of them in Parts 7 and 33 of it’s 39 Part Series on where to start with Source-to-Pay where it listed over 70 e-Procurement companies and over 75 Invoice-to-Pay and Accounts Payable companies. Their press release only lists 15 companies but …

… doesn’t seem to recognize that e-Sourcing, e-Procurement, and Supply Chain Management are not the same thing at all, and one of the vendors included is Delta e-Sourcing whose primary offerings are baseline e-Sourcing/tendering and supplier management and offers only baseline e-Procurement, compared to Medius which offers Procure-to-Pay (Procurement, Invoice Management, and AP Automation). Even worse, it contains Archlet that is an analytics-backed Sourcing Platform with Decision Optimiation and which DOES NOT OFFER ANY e-PROCUREMENT TOOLS.

… isn’t up to date. It lists LetsBuyIt.NET GmbH as one of the 15 vendors (and if you’re saying who?, you’re not alone because it doesn’t exist anymore). LetsBuyIt.Net is now eBidToPay Schweiz, and has been for nine (9) months. (So is this a recycled report from 2022 or 2021?)

… includes a big vendor that doesn’t even sell a Procurement Application anymore! It lists IBM corporation as the first provider, and while IBM acquired Emptoris in 2011, it began to sunset it in 2017 when it worked out an agreement with SAP to migrate all the Emptoris customers to the SAP Ariba platform!

In other words, if the press release is accurate, then this report, like many of the two-dozen plus low-cost reports you can buy from the two-dozen plus Indian Market Research firms that have popped up over the last two decades, would be more-or-less complete rubbish and you’d be better off taking that $6K and sending two of your top buyers to a major Procurement event where they can hear from experts, network with peers, and learn something actually valuable.

And if you need REAL market insight into current vendors and their platform capabilities, and the Gartner/Hackett reports don’t meet your needs, you can always go direct to the experts (like the doctor or Xavier and Bertrand* at Spend Matters, who the doctor has publicly recommended in his list of analysts and consultants he recommends when he’s not the best expert to help you). Yes, you may have to pay a few K per day, but you get targeted advice to your organization which is worth ten times (or more) what you pay because it’s based on decades of research and experience that allows the analyst/consultant to give you the best targetted advice for your organization while filtering out the market information that is relevant to you.

* Bertrand could be the last great analyst in our space! Take advantage of this while you still can … after all, it’s not the analyst firm. It’s the analyst!

If You Want Good Procurement People …

TRAIN THEM!

A common problem among all Procurement departments is their ability to find good, educated, experienced people. The reason for this is simple: there just aren’t enough good, educated, and experienced people to fill all the Procurement positions that should exist among corporations world-wide.

Why?

1. Procurement isn’t Sexy

People go into careers that are attractive. These are careers that are held in high regard (like doctors and lawyers), careers that pay well (like finance and tech), careers that are currently in high demand where unusually high premiums can be found in the right locations (like nursing or remote mining/O&G positions), or careers that bring fame (like acting, entertaining, and professional sports). People don’t go into careers that no one’s heard of, careers that have a negative stigma, or careers that don’t pay well. Guess what bucket(s) Procurement falls into? The latter three. No one’s heard of it (who even advertises their world class Procurement, yet alone makes it sexy — that’s right, no company on earth). It’s still thought to be the Island of Misfit Toys. And many people think back office purchasing pay scales are akin to entry level AP clerks.

2. There are No Real Procurement Programs

Prestigious Universities have prestigious business schools. These focus on executive management and basic operations. The best of these will also teach classic logistics. There are only a few Supply Chain Management programs globally, and none of these teach modern Procurement platforms and processes as a general rule. A few have brief introductions to modern spend analysis or e-Auction or RFP platforms, but that’s literally two decades old tech in our field. No one coming out of University has any real understanding of modern procurement processes, best practices, or platforms.

3. Most Procurement People Have Very Narrow Skill Sets

When you’re in Procurement because you get put there, fall there because there was nothing else at the time and you needed a job, or voluntarily move there to help the company because you demonstrated a knack for buying certain categories and without you, the company would be suffering and possibly have to layoff your friends, you didn’t go there because you had the right education and experience and knew it was the best job for you. Furthermore, when companies don’t invest in the education you need to learn end-to-end processes, best practices, and category specifics outside of the area you came from, you end up developing, usually by trial and error, a very narrow skill set in terms of applications you can use, processes you know, and market interpretation to determine if the offer is reasonable in current market conditions. This makes it very hard to jump to another job and be a good buyer in another category, or even a similar category where you would have to buy a whole new set of parts from a whole new set of suppliers in a whole new geography.

Thus, it’s going to be very hard, for any intermediate position, to find the right person who can walk in and do the job at market average performance day one.

However, Procurement is not rocket science, open heart surgery, or CPU design. It’s not hard to find very smart engineers, mathematicians, technologists, pharmacists, chemists, etc. who can, with focussed training in best-practice procurement processes and platforms, very quickly pick up the basics of Procurement and use their deep knowledge of products and R&D/Engineering/Manufacturing needs to identify the best products, suppliers, and partners for the organization. These highly educated individuals will also have a decent background in mathematics, algorithms, and logic to learn the spend analysis / market intelligence platforms and quickly identify market average prices and costs for products and parts and be able to analyze bids against current organizational prices, market prices, and should cost models to identify those suppliers offering fair quotes as well as additional service-based value.

With a few weeks of focussed training on key processes and platforms, these resources can often be up and running effectively, and with a few months of training over their first few years, quickly progress to a top-tier performer. All you have to do is bring back the Learning & Development budget and train them by hiring appropriate analysts and consultancies to design/deliver the courses they need to be effective for your organization. And even though custom courses can cost considerable up-front dollars, 10K is nothing if it helps a top-tier resource identify a 10% savings on a 10M contract, as that’s literally a 100X return on your investment. (Remember this the next time someone considers cutting the training budget for Procurement as the return on proper training for a good resource will always exceed the investment many times over.)

The Seven Patterns of Artificial Idiocy … in Procurement

AI proponents, who keep telling us it stands for Artificial Intelligence which does not exist, keep pushing the benefits of AI while sweeping all of the detriments under the rug so you’ll sign that multi-year deal now (and they’ll have the money to keep researching the technology in the hopes that their continued efforts will prevent the bad from happening again). (And while the tech will get better and the success rates will improve, the very nature of the technology they are deploying is such that it is impossible to prevent the bad because the technology is not intelligent and not deterministic, as per our many previous posts on the subject. The best will eventually get success rates up to 99%, but that’s still a 1% failure rate and, in Procurement, it only takes one catastrophic failure to wipe out all of the successes made in the rest of the year. It only takes one bad decision that shuts down a multi-million production line, results in class action lawsuits for the release of unsafe products in to the market, or results in seizures and destruction of millions of dollars of inventory when the products violate import restrictions, etc. to deliver masses losses.)

And the benefits they push typically fall into one of the seven patterns of AI that the AI proponents keep telling us AI will deliver. To help you better classify the false promises, we’ve decided to cover the seven patterns, example promises, and realities you will encounter if you implement current iterations of technology that employ Artificial Idiocy.

HyperPersonalization
Promise: The system will adapt and evolve over time so that when you log in, you see exactly what you need to see, in priority order for you.
Reality: The system comes with a set of widgets, and all the AI does is reorder the alerts/notifications/tasks/reporting views in each widget based on a priority weighting where the weights are recalculated based on recency in access so, at the end of the day, it just keeps showing you what you just looked at and truly important alerts, because you haven’t regularly looked at them, are at the bottom of the widget and off the screen since you never scroll down inside the widget. Classic rule based systems work better.

Recognition
Promise: 100% effective automated invoice processing, routing, and approval
Reality: it only recognizes invoices from suppliers who invoice regularly in a format that never changes; and only if the line item descriptions are never abbreviated; and only matches properly if the PO number is included; 10%+ of invoices have to be manually processed, and abbreviation errors cause misclassifications of units that sometimes don’t get caught until after payment is issued

Conversation and Human Interaction
Promise: natural language interaction, including voice to text
Reality: due to the ambiguous nature of the English language, the number of follow on questions the AI has to ask just to produce a simple report requires the user to spend five minutes giving clarifications and specifying parameters that could be point-and-click selected in 30 seconds; efficiency is flushed down the virtual toilet

Predictive Analytics & Decisions
Promise: what the price will be when, and why
Reality: works really well 95% of the time, with price accuracy often within 2% to 3% and demand predictions (outside F&B and other highly unpredictable industries) within 3% to 5% at the macro/rollup level, but when a trader illegally tries to run up the market with excessive trades, and prices start to skyrocket and the algorithm doesn’t know this is unusual/short-term, it may predict extreme price increases at contract expiry in 6 months, and automatically early renew the contract for you at rates 30% to 130% higher than it should (before the costs become unaffordable)

Goal-Driven Systems
Promise: Sustainable Buys with Cost Savings
Reality: Unsustainable buys as cost is overweighted and over-prioritized in all situations; ’nuff said

Autonomous Systems
Promise: They will procure automatically and do better than humans
Reality: They procure automatically and occasionally do better than humans, usually do on par, and occasionally make such disastrous decisions that the company does well to avoid bankruptcy …

Patterns & Anomalies
Promise: They will detect unusual spending patterns and detect the best opportunities for savings and the most likely instances of fraud
Reality: Unusual spending patterns don’t mean savings, and usual spending patterns don’t mean absence of fraud, and you get all kinds of “priority alerts” with no savings opportunities while the largest opportunities go unidentified and collusion frauds are never detected

At the end of the day, as we’ve said again and again, Procurement Automation: Good, (AI) Automated Procurement: Bad. Only you, dear reader, are intelligent and, thus, only you should do the thinking and only use technology for what it’s good at, the thunking.

While A Good Procurement Tool, Amazon Business IS NOT The Answer to Increasing Revenue and Boosting Resilience in Procurement!

OI! This is yet another article the doctor shouldn’t have to write, but after encountering this thinly veiled advertisement for Amazon Business masquerading as a sponsored article on Thriving Through Disruption over on Supply Chain Dive, it appears he has no choice because simply transferring your Procurement to a third party, like a GPO (Group Purchasing Organization) or Outsourced Procurement Operation, doesn’t necessarily solve the problems you are having (it just changes ownership of them). Furthermore, no single organization, including Amazon Business, is going to even be aware of, yet alone work with, all potential suppliers, and, thus, no single organization is going to be capable of maximizing your options, especially around DEI (which is something else the article trumps up).

As the article notes, resilience is KEY to successful Procurement given that major sources of global supply chain descriptions — global conflict, changing climate, resource shortages, human error (and just plain incompetence), political unrest, and much more — have only increased since the transition from pandemic to endemic for COVID, and the rate of increase shows no sign of slowing down (especially with labour disruptions also heading towards all time highs along with natural disasters).

And, as the article notes, your Procurement department needs to be agile. Unknowns abound and disruptions, even high probability ones, cannot be predicted. And even the best laid plans for risk mitigation can be voided when those plans depend on alternate supply from a supplier or distributor that gets impacted from the same natural disaster, border disruption, or labour strike. As such, an organization needs near real-time supply chain monitoring, a diverse supplier base, and the capability to react quickly when the unexpected, but inevitable, happens.

And, as the article notes, with the backing of an e-Procurement system … organizations can discover new insights that could help them adapt effectively to a changing supplier landscape, fostering flexibility and enhancing robustness.

But, and this is a key point, Amazon Business is NOT an e-Procurement system. It’s a marketplace. More specifically, it’s a very good marketplace, and one that EVERY organization should have in its arsenal for low-volume/tail spend/indirect Procurement (because, like a GPO, the volume it can deliver to suppliers can make it very attractive for suppliers to advertise its best prices up front to win all of the customers on Amazon Business), but it’s NOT a modern e-Procurement platform. (And if you want to understand what this is, and which vendors may provide this to you in a marketplace/vendor agnostic fashion, check out Parts 3 to 7 of Sourcing Innovations 39 Part Series to Help You Figure Out Where to Start with Source-to-Pay, where Part 7 contains a list of over seventy [70] e-procurement companies to check out.)

Similarly, when the article says supplier diversity is a powerful way to enhance service, quality, and value by promoting an inclusive, proactive approach to purchasing from individuals or groups who are members of a traditionally underrepresented or under-utilized group. it is also dead on. Furthermore, as the article says, with the right solutions in place, Procurement leaders can extend equitable access into their sourcing practices, creating a transformative opportunity for small, local, or diverse businesses, as well as their own organizations. And, yes, DEI suppliers can build capabilities, create opportunities, and strengthen community and, yes, a DEI program focussed on including diverse suppliers in sourcing events will help an organization broaden its supply chain, but Amazon Business alone will NOT be sufficient to identify and validate all of the diverse suppliers an organization should be considering. It is true that it is one of the few marketplaces that has designed features and tools to streamline the identification and validation of diverse suppliers, but it’s also true it only has so many vendors on the platform, and the majority are for indirect and MRO — not direct and not services. So it’s NOT a complete solution.

Now, let’s be clear that we’re not trying to dismiss Amazon Business here, because, for many mid-size organizations, it should be part of their Procurement Toolkit and even part of their tail-spend / non strategic purchasing strategy as it can really simplify a Procurement buyer’s life by offering verified products from verified suppliers with reliable delivery dates at good prices. But it’s not an e-Procurement platform and definitely no where close to a complete solution. Understand it for what it is, use it as appropriate for the great value it will give you, but don’t have unrealistic expectations, or the disruptions that eventually be arise will be much more damaging and shocking then they should otherwise be with an appropriately managed multi-pronged organizational Procurement strategy.