Category Archives: Services

IQNavigator Navigates You Through Statement of Work Creation

Since we last covered IQNavigator and their IQ-based Navigation of Contingent Labour Sourcing in 2008, IQNavigator has been hard at work extending their platform and its capabilities to go beyond temporary and contingent labour and also handle project and SOW (Statement-of-Work) sourcing events and the full SOW life-cycle.

Project and SOW sourcing projects, even if they consist primarily of contingent labour, are different from standard contingent labour sourcing events in that a third party is managing the project, payments are (typically) on a different schedule and have to be tracked against a budget, and named resources need to be tracked. The entire process, from RFX, through contract generation and award, to project management and delivery is different.

The customizations in the IQNavigator platform start with the initial RFX creation, which begins with a wizard-based decision-tree workflow. This Decision Manager is customizable by the organization for each type of SOW project that it undertakes, that, based on a series of questions, will configure the proper RFX for the project in question. This series of questions (that can be customized by each client organization), which could be as simple as asking the user to identify the location where the services are required, the category of the work (IT, engineering, advertising, etc.), the length of the project, the expected budget (range) required, and the approvals required, will, once completed, initiate an RFX workflow that will incorporate the necessary elements of the SOW project. The Decision Manager solution was designed to focus on two things:

  1. Delivering the end user to the correct channel (or category) based on Procurement’s operational and/or vendor preferences and
  2. Placing the end user at the optimal point of the defined category workflow based on the end user’s responses

Depending on the answers given, the RFX will include sections for the definition of milestones, budgets, rate tables, (open) supplier selection, support for named resources, questionnaires, and / or required submissions (such as insurance certificates) from the supplier to be considered for the project. The user will then be walked through the definition of the RFX for the SOW project step-by-step (by way of a pre-configured RFX or SOW template).

Milestones are up to the individual who creates the project, can be tied to a budget line item, and associated with one or more deliverables. Budgets can be as simple as an overall budget for the project, or as detailed as a budget category for each deliverable associated with each milestone (if the project is being paid for on a deliverable basis) or by (named) resource if the project is being conducted on a time-and-materials basis.

Suppliers can quickly be selected from a drop-down search box if the organization has (pre)approved suppliers for the SOW project in question, and if the suppliers have provided rate tables, these rate tables can be automatically pulled in and presented back to the supplier (to verify) during their bid. In addition, if the supplier has previously specified named resources, these named resources can be pre-populated as well. Depending on the project, they buyer may also have the option to add additional suppliers (which will be invited to bid on the project as well).

Questionnaires can also be selected from a set of standard pre-existing questionnaires associated with the type of project being sourced. They can be distributed as-is or modified as required. In addition, the user can create their own questionnaire if one doesn’t exist that fits the bill.

When the RFX is complete to the user’s satisfaction, it is sent to the supplier who logs in and completes a bid to their satisfaction. If the supplier has already defined their rate tables and named resources and uploaded their insurance certificates, bidding on the project by the supplier could be as simple as identifying the resources who will complete the work, providing work estimates and proposed fees, and accepting the (automatically calculated) budget.

When all of the supplier responses have been obtained, the buyer, who can choose to analyze each response individually, can also evaluate the responses side by side in a comparison report that includes the (budget) elements of interest and then select one of the responses as the basis of a project award. At this point, the application can generate a draft contract based upon a template that pulls in all of the collected information, and includes any necessary documents in appendices. And if the supplier has signed a MSA (Master Services Agreement) with the buyer that authorizes password-based named-login approvals in the IQNavigator SOW platform as e-Signatures, the contract can be accepted online and work can begin immediately.

The entire SOW application is streamlined to make the sourcing and approval of SOW projects as easy as possible for the project manager, while incorporating as many best practices as possible, which allows the project manager to focus her time on what she does best — managing projects and not running sourcing events.

Then, once the SOW project has been awarded, the project manager can use the rest of the IQNavigator platform to track project progress against milestones, collect time sheets, approve time sheets and expenditures, make payments against project budget categories, and track overall supplier performance. The reporting engine can be used to run reports at any time and the dashboard can be used to monitor current action items and outstanding project milestones and deliverables.

The inclusion of SOW capability makes IQNavigator an end-to-end platform for managing all types of contingent labour required by your organization, whether such labour is managed in house or by a third party. The IQNaviagor approach to SOW is unique, and it is the most thorough solution for generic SOW sourcing events in a contingent labour solution that SI has seen to date.
The IQNavigator platform is a great way to get all of your labour-based spend under management in one platform.

While You Were on Summer Vacation, Vendor Posts, Part I

While you were on summer vacation, SI was powering away with daily posts and continuing to cover some of the leading vendors in the space, presenting a number of deep dives on their respective technology platforms. Here is a short recap of some of the coverage you might have missed!

Ecovadis-Powered E-TASC

In our post on Ecovadis-Powered E-TASC, we reported that Ecovadis is now powering the new, and greatly improved, version of the Electronic Tool for Accountable Supply Chains. Launched by the Global e-Sustainability Initiative (GESI), the new platform had over 20 ITC companies and over 1000 ICT suppliers registered, subscribed, and deployed within a month and, according to the E-TASC site, now has over 1,400 facilities in the system. By (re)launching on Ecovadis, a buyer has immediate access to deep sustainability, business practice, labour practice, human rights, and environmental assessments in one comprehensive, audited, third party verified report. (More information on Ecovadis can be found in this classic SI post on how they are Ecovating the Globe.)

Nipendo

In our posts on Nipendo, which is Bringing O2P and P2P to the Mainstream and Streamlined Invoice Management for Even the Largest Organization, we noted how Nipendo, a provider of order-to-payment automation software, recently released a new version of its order-to-payment (O2P) platform that includes automated rules-based end-to-end invoice reconciliation — which also supports automatic data normalization, completion, and matching — that allows even the largest Global 3000 to not only reach the point where 98%+ of invoices are processed electronically, but where 90%+ are processed without human intervention. Their largest customer reached this point within two years, and their average customer sees over 80% of invoices being processed electronically within one year due to Nipendo’s multi-faceted supplier onboarding process. Realizing that the necessary data is going to come from a variety of systems, Nipendo integrates with all the major ERP vendors, a large number of third party supply management platforms, and provides suppliers with a number of options to submit invoices, including a web-portal and a print-to-cloud solution that allows a supplier to install a plug-in that will allow them to print their invoice from their billing system directly into the Nipendo platform.

Fieldglass

In our post about Fieldglass, and how they are adapting to every contingency (Part I, Part II, and Part III), we noted how Fieldglass has been hard at work evolving their platform since SI last covered them in 2010 and, in addition to improving its rate guidance and extending its rate structure capability, has streamlined its job posting capability, implemented e-mail approvals, developed an “Ask- An-Expert” recommendation engine, built a powerful timesheet manager, and added extensive Statement of Work Support. The rate structure capability is one of the hidden gems of the platform. With deployments in over 80 countries, Fieldglass has a deep insight into the many varied, complex, and strange rate structures around the world that can include per diems, special bonuses, hazard and isolation pay, vacation pay, etc., with each component separately (not) taxable by multiple state (and federal) agencies – and has built a platform with enough flexibility and configurability to handle it all. Another hidden gem is e-mail approvals. While very simple in theory, and relatively simple in implementation, this simple functionality reduced the cycle time to fill a position by 66% in the customers that implemented it! And the timesheet and Statement of Work modules are just cool.

Come back tomorrow and we’ll tell you about three more recently covered companies you might have missed!

If You Want Profits to Go Up, Help People Get Up!

This spring, the Economist published a very interesting piece on how things are looking up for lift-makers who help people who need to get to the top floor, please. The four firms that control two-thirds of the global lift market — Otis (United Technologies), Kone, ThyssenKrupp, and Schindler — have seen their profits, more or less, steadily rise over the last ten years, as their margins increased approximately 10 points.

This is partly due to the fact that global demand for new lifts has gone from approximately 300,000 a decade ago to nearly 700,000 this year. This is primarily due to the urban migration — as approximately 70 Million people migrate to cities every year, where they live in apartments and condos and work in high-rise offices which all use escalators and elevators. And these people, who despise getting stuck in lifts, pay $2,000 to $5,000 a year to keep them running smoothly. As most of these only need a quick check-up and a little grease every few months, margins on maintenance are 25% to 35% compared with 10% on new equipment.

The mega-trend of urbanization provides opportunities for any business that can service the changing needs of the population, which needs to live and work in high-rises. This poses more opportunities for companies in construction, utilities, (last-mile) transportation, and service industries that cater to busy people who need dry-cleaning, maid service, meals on the go, and entertainment. And it also poses opportunity for companies that can optimize the services and servitized supply chain and the last-mile of delivery.

How Do You Define “Closed Loop” in the Indirect Supply Chain?

Yesterday, in reference to an article on 8 steps to a servitized supply chain that appeared last summer in the Supply Chain Quarterly, we asked what is a servitized supply chain? It was a good question that merited a good answer. However, if you read the article, which finished by noting that the most powerful benefits of this business model arise from integrated teams that can provide closed-loop feedback from the customer all the way back to the suppliers, you are led to another question. Namely, what does closed-loop really mean when you are talking about services, and, when you are sourcing such services, how do you define closed loop in the context of the indirect supply chain that provides the umbrella that services normally fall under?

In the direct space, a closed-loop supply chain is one where Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs) reintegrate their returned products into their own production network. The entire life-cycle, from cradle to grave, is effectively and efficiently managed to insure waste is minimized, value is maximized, and sustainability is achieved. A closed loop supply chain considers raw materials, production, distribution, warranty, returns, disassembly, and reclamation of raw materials. It designs for easy repair, reuse when possible, and disassembly / recycling when not. When properly designed, such a closed-loop supply chain maximizes value.

So what is the equivalent in the indirect space? For starters, it must be a supply chain that maximizes value over the life of the indirect supply chain. In addition, it must cover everything involved in the creation, production, delivery, and recovery of those services. Creation is rather straight-forward — it is the design of the services. Production is rather straight-forward — it is the creation of the materials and processes for the delivery of the services. Delivery is rather straight-forward — it is the distribution of the services to the end client. But what is recovery? In indirect, in addition to the reclamation and recycling of any materials produced for the purposes of delivering the services, it is the collection of feedback designed to improve the services in the next iteration.

For example, lets’s say the service is training on a new supply management solution you just purchased. In this services supply chain, the creation is the design of the curriculum; the production is the creation of the specific syllabi, texts, presentations, walkthroughs, videos, and guidebooks, etc.; the delivery is the in-person hands-on training course; and the recovery is the collection of any materials distributed for re-use and feedback on what was good about the course, what was not very effective, and what could be added or done differently in the future.

In other words, in the indirect space, the closed-loop is the creation, distribution, collection, and recollection of knowledge gained in order to increase the value delivered while improving the sustainability of the supply chain.

Do you agree?

What is a “Servitized” Supply Chain?

Last summer, the Supply Chain Quarterly published an article that defined “8 steps to a servitized supply chain”. Each of the 8 steps consisted of a supply chain best practice that you should be doing whether or not you desire a servitized supply-chain, or even care about services from a revenue perspective, as each of the 8 steps is something you should be doing even if you have a product-focussed supply chain. So why would you need, or want, a “servitized” supply chain and, more importantly, what is it?

According to the article, “servitization” is defined as bundled product-service packages that provide differentiated sources of value to customers, and, as a result, a “servitized” supply chain is one that supports such offerings and, ostentatiously, is different than a product-focussed supply chain. According to the authors, such a chain is more responsive and agile, can vary degrees of service outcomes to a differentiated customer base, and increases the probability of more profitable relationships between the Supply Management organization and the manufacturers with whom it does business.

At this point, I’m a little confused because, at least in the fast-moving Apparel and Consumer Electronics industry, a successful product-oriented supply chain is extremely responsive and agile (as orders for products in demand have to met quickly and orders for products not in demand have to be cut), offers various levels of product and warranty customization (where applicable) to user-defined tastes, and increases the probability of profitable relationships between the Supply Management organization and the manufacturers with whom it does business. This is because, in these industries, the product is the service, as McLuhan’s classic statement that the medium is the message, while not always true in today’s information age where you are hit with the same message across multiple mediums, is true in the consumer product industry. For many consumers, the products they buy define who they are and create the statements and messages they want to convey. As a result, when you create a product you are also creating a messaging service that your consumers can use to, indirectly, advertise who they are. So, in effect, your offering is a service as much as it is a product and the concept of a service supply chain being different is, well, a bit foreign.

Of course, if you are in the hardware industry and selling the same old nuts, bolts, and traditional C-section joists that you have been making for twenty years, then it’s probably the case that your supply chain is not very service oriented. In this case, if you “servitized” your supply chain and listened to your customers who want frames that are lighter (as steel prices are skyrocketing), stronger (as they want to build bigger), and faster to assemble (as labour is costly), you might come up with a solution akin to the iSpan Total Joist solution. To do this, you would have to become more responsive, offer various levels of product and services (including pre-fabricated kits for warehouses of pre-defined architectures and sizes), and, as an effect, increase your profitability as your customers pay more for the solutions they want (that save them time or raw material cost). But note that, even in this situation, your supply chain would still be oriented around a product — the only difference is that you would optimize the services offerings around that product.

So, in effect, a “servitized” supply chain is just one that is optimized for products and associated services, and, that, in effect, is just an “optimized” supply chain. And an “optimized” supply chain is one that creates collaborative teams across the supply, sales, and marketing functions to drive value. And we should call a spade a spade, instead of creating more unnecessary terminology.