Category Archives: Sourcing Innovation

The UX One Should Expect from Best-In-Class Optimization … Part III

In our last post on The UX One Should Expect from Best-In-Class Optimization (Part II) we continued our foray into the world of optimization and how the requirements for a good user experience go well beyond the requirements for e-RFX and even best-in-class e-Auction platforms. (As for the basic requirements of any e-RFX or e-Auction platform, see our two-part series on Best-in-Class e-Sourcing Part I and Part II and our deeper dive into Best-in-Class e-Auctions Part I and Part II.)

the doctor cannot emphasize just how important sourcing optimization is, and is about to become, for any organization that wants to continue to not only find savings but identify crucial value, and, to be blunt, unavoidable. This is because, especially in North America and the UK (where many global organizations are headquartered), savings are about to go up in smoke due to inflation, protectionist policies, insufficient supply of raw materials, and forthcoming breakdowns in trade agreements.

Considering that it’s one of only two advanced sourcing solutions that can be used to generate year-over-year savings, and value, in excess of 10%, and the only solution that can not only identify the potential but also identify an actual award scenario to realize the savings and/or value, organizations getting budget-stressed year-over-year will not be able to hold out much longer — at least not if they want to stay competitive.

But not any platform will do, it has to be useable. Most buyers, who are afraid of, as the Brits like to say, the maths, are naturally afraid of such platforms, which they still fear are math heavy and insanely difficult to use (like the first generation platforms tended to be), and that fear will only be overcome if they see a great user experience awaits. And we mean great.

What does that entail? About a dozen different usability requirements, of which we’ve already discussed two — true, powerful, cost modelling and guided sourcing by the way of system-assisted “what-if” support.

But this is just the beginning. Another core requirement, and one the vast majority of systems have missed in the past, is automatic identification of unsatisfiable constraints. In basic sourcing optimization events, as the doctor and the prophet pointed out over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required] in our latest article on “What To Expect from Best-in-Class Sourcing Optimization Technology and User Design (Part 3)”, the “model” itself will only be lightly constrained, as procurement will want to limit the potential inputs to award scenarios (all of which impact price) to one or only a handful of constraints. Quite often these constraints are centred around capacity in potential award decisions. But as stakeholders gather and add more constraints, the potential increases to create a null award set. And if the scenario can’t be solved, the value of optimization can’t be realized.

Sometimes a human can easily figure out which constraints are prevent solution, and sometimes, because there are so many and they all weakly constrain the award and it’s actually a set of 6 to 10 working in unison making the scenario unsolveable, a human can’t. And if a human’s only option to find a reasonable solution is just to delete constraints until the model solves, that’s not likely to generate the lowest cost award or the award that satisfies the stakeholder’s desired constraints to the maximum extent possible. The buyer or analyst really needs to know the exact constraints, or sets, causing the model to be unsolveable so she can modify, or remove, just those and present her stakeholders with the lowest cost / highest value award that violates the smallest number of desired constraints.

But, as you can guess, that’s not all a platform needs to do. For a deeper dive, check out the doctor and the prophet‘s latest instalment in our optimization UX series, “What To Expect from Best-in-Class Sourcing Optimization Technology and User Design (Part 3)”, over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required] and stay tuned for Part IV.

The UX One Should Expect from Best-In-Class Optimization … Part II

In our last post on The UX One Should Expect from Best-In-Class Optimization we began our foray into the world of optimization and how the requirements for a good user experience goes well beyond the requirements for e-RFX and even best-in-class e-Auction. (As for the basic requirements of any e-RFX or e-Auction platform, see our two-part series on Best-in-Class e-Sourcing Part I and Part II and our deeper dive into Best-in-Class e-Auctions Part I and Part II.)

In our post, where we noted that last Thursday over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required] the doctor and the prophet posted the first article in our four part series on “What to Expect from Best-in-Class Sourcing Optimization Technology and User Design (Part 1)”, we indicated that optimization is important, very important, and about to become even more important as savings go up in smoke due to inflation, protectionist policies, and insufficient supply of raw materials. (And, as we noted, that’s why Coupa spent a lot of its IPO proceeds to buy Trade Extensions. They might not understand what they bought, or how to use it, or where it fits in, but they saw the future and wanted to get in the game early enough to have some time to — hopefully — figure it out before their competition.)

Plus, as we noted, it’s the only advanced sourcing solution that has been demonstrated, repeatedly, by analysts and providers alike, to provide year-over-year returns over 10% when properly applied. Plus, unlike spend analysis, which only identifies the high-level savings opportunities (which can only be captured if appropriate events are undertaken, possibly based on optimization), optimization produces the exact award scenario required to generate the savings. And, often, this will be a scenario that will never, ever be identified by any human, even if given enough time to generate dozens, or even hundreds, of spreadsheets.

In our last post, we noted that one of the core requirements of such a platform was powerful cost modelling as true calculation, and optimization, of the costs of goods sold requires complex breakdowns and formulas because, in practice, with even the most “vanilla” or simplest of products, there are fixed costs and variable costs and that these change at different production levels. And in addition to fixed and variable costs associated with the product creation, there’s also import / export tariffs, taxes, logistics costs, utilization costs, warranty, return, and disposal costs and a host of other category specific costs.

But that’s just one core component of the platform. Another, as explained in the doctor and the prophet‘s second piece on “What To Expect from Best-in-Class Sourcing Optimization Technology and User Design (Part 2)” [membership required] is guided sourcing by way of system-assisted “what-if” support.

Cost modelling is indeed a powerful tool, especially when compared to a system that doesn’t have it, but arguably the real power of a strategic sourcing decision optimization tool lies in the ability to generate, analyze, and compare what are called “what if?” scenarios. This statement holds true both when analyzing cost and when analyzing risk, as well as the broader resilience components of sourcing award/allocation decisions.

As the co-authors note, even expert sourcing optimization users commonly look to collect data and apply constraints centred on near-term thinking — and award decisions. But when viewed in true context (i.e. an awarded supplier’s performance over the term of the contract), it is rarely the lowest cost and resulting business allocation scenario that brings the greatest value to the organization. Rather, it is the scenario that is the most resilient in the face of unpredictability.

Moreover, even minor variations resulting from different initial or future award considerations can have drastic impacts on costs. And it is only through such scenario analysis that a slightly higher cost award decision today (or in the future) could end up delivering far greater organizational value. Users can now think through all such potential scenarios, so it should be common practice to use the capability to test hunches and/or quantify potential risks … which can only be done with the right sourcing optimization platform with a modern, appropriate, user experience.

But this is just another piece of the puzzle. Stay tuned for Part III.

The UX One Should Expect from Best-In-Class Optimization … Part I

In our last four posts, we dove deep, really deep, into the basic requirements for any modern e-Negotiation platform (which we defined as e-RFX and/or e-Auction) and then dove deeper into the additional requirements for any e-Auction platform that claims to be a modern, best-in-class, e-Auction platform in the year 2017 (not 2007, where some seem to be stuck — but we won’t talk about them). [See Best-in-Class e-Sourcing Part I, Best-in-Class e-Sourcing Part II, Best-in-Class e-Auctions Part I, and Best-in-Class e-Auctions Part II.] But we excluded optimization for a reason, because the requirements for optimization go beyond — way beyond — the requirements for even the most intense set of requirements for the most advanced e-Auction platform (which can support bills of materials and constraints).

Last Thursday, over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required], the doctor and the prophet posted the first article in our four part series on “What to Expect from Best-in-Class Sourcing Optimization Technology and User Design (Part 1)” (that’s right, 4-part series), where we begin our deep dive into what best-in-class sourcing optimization looks like and how form follows function from a design perspective.

First of all, optimization is important — and about to become even more important as savings go up in smoke due to inflation, protectionist policies, and insufficient supply of raw materials. Why do you think Coupa spent a healthy chunk of its IPO proceeds to purchase Trade Extensions. (They might not understand what they bought, or how to use it, but they saw the future and wanted to get in the game early enough to have some time to, hopefully, figure it out before their competition.)

Secondly, it’s the only advanced sourcing solution that has been demonstrated, when properly applied, to generate year-over-year returns over 10% (and an average of 12% according to two of the first back-to-back studies conducted by Aberdeen last decade). Plus, unlike spend analysis, which only identifies the high-level savings opportunities (which can only be captured if appropriate events are undertaken, possibly based on optimization), optimization produces the exact award scenario required to generate the savings.

Third, and most important, optimization identifies opportunities for both savings and value generation that no other platform can. Opportunities and supply chain designs no human, even with thousands of spreadsheets, will ever identify. It’s the foundation for a new sourcing age, but one that will only happen if optimization gets adopted, which will only happen if it provides a great user experience (as that’s the only thing that will overcome the math-based fear that surrounds it).

So what does such a platform need? Many, many things (as we dive into in What To Expect from Best-in-Class Sourcing Optimization Technology and User Design (Part 1) [membership required], but one thing it requires is powerful cost modelling.

You see, true calculation, and optimization, of the cost of goods sold requires complex breakdowns and formulas because, in practice, with even the most “vanilla” or simplest of products, there are fixed costs and variable costs and that these change at different production levels. For example, there are fixed costs to set up and start a production line, and then variable costs for each production level depending on raw resources, energy and manpower required to produce the product. And that’s just the beginning. You also have to worry about import / export tariffs, taxes, logistics costs, utilization costs, warranty, return, and disposal costs and a host of other category specific costs. If the costs aren’t modelled accurately, they can’t be optimized accurately. A great optimization platform thus supports flexible and powerful user defined cost models that break down costs as needed and to levels where individual elements can be optimized when possible.

And this is just the beginning.

Stay tuned for Part II in our series.

Why Advanced Sourcing Is Not Progressing …

“Protect me from knowing what I don’t need to know. Protect me from even knowing that there are things to know that I don’t know. Protect me from knowing that I decided not to know about the things that I decided not to know about. Amen.” That’s it. It’s what you pray silently inside yourself anyway, so you may as well have it out in the open.
Douglas Adams, Mostly Harmless, Chapter 10

Regular readers will know that there are a couple of scary statistics in this space. First of all, almost 40% of Sourcing / Procurement organizations don’t have any modern, Sourcing / Procurement specific, applications tailored for their jobs and are still making do with e-mail and spreadsheets and Microsoft products. Ack!

Secondly, the number of organizations with advanced sourcing solutions, such as modern spend analysis (with predictive and prescriptive analytics), decision optimization, and contract analytics is much, much less. For the former category, we might hit 50% of organizations this year (as spend analysis is all the rage) but for the latter (which is what identifies the real missed opportunities and captures them), maybe 20% of organizations with solutions. Maybe. Ack! Ack!

All this despite the fact that SI has literally spent over a decade trying to convince organizations to buy these solutions, even though the first (and even second generation) were clunky and sometimes difficult to use. (Unlike e-Procurement, which has to be easy to generate value, if a solution can save you 10% on a 100 Million category, you can put up with a bit of pain to save 10 Million. Heck, you can put up with a lot of pain.) However, we’re at generation three now and they are almost as easy to use as search, click, buy e-Procurement systems. They have smart templates, smart workflows, and dozens of validity checks and while you still have to know what you are doing and what the solution does, what used to be days of setup can be accomplished in hours and processing that used to take days sometimes finishes in minutes. They should be ubiquitous, but they’re not.

Why? Because even though the solutions have improved considerably over the past decades, the staff of these Procurement departments have not. They still use old tools and they still believe the solutions now are just more colourful and fanciful versions of the solutions then. And thanks to an utter lack of training (due to budgets being cut year after year after year during crunch times despite all the lip service to the value of talent and training), they don’t know better. And like poor Arthur Dent, they just can’t fathom how the old man walks from pole to pole and crosses space like it’s just not there. (Because that’s what these solutions do. They literally cross hyper-dimensional solution spaces you can’t see like they aren’t there.)

And, like Arthur, they say their daily isolationist prayer because they can’t handle it any other way. But it’s not their fault. It’s management’s fault for cutting the training budget year after year and leaving their team in the Supply Management dark ages. And now we’re all suffering.

The UIX One Should Expect from Best-In-Class Auctions, Part II

Last week we dove deep into the basic general requirements for any e-Negotiation platform, namely e-RFX and e-Auction, and called out the need for easy template creation and easy starting bid population and validation as two necessary key requirements (among a set of requirements). (See: Best-in-Class e-Sourcing Part I and Best-in-Class e-Sourcing Part II.)

However, as we explained in our last post, the requirements for auctions go quite deeper than the requirements for RFX. In our latest article over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required] on “What To Expect from Best-in-Class Reverse Auction Technology and User Design (Part 2)”, the doctor and the prophet dive deep into specific capabilities required of modern e-Auction platforms in order for a user to have a great experience.

In our article, we define three absolutely requirements, as well as two requirements that will soon be absolute, for every e-Auction platform that wants to be a modern platform, including real-time connectivity monitoring.

As we state in our article, internet and software connectivity should never be taken for granted. This is a lesson one of the authors originally learned over 15 years ago (first hand) when helping run early online sourcing events at FreeMarkets. However, even today, many platforms still take this for granted, assuming that everyone has the reliable, redundant internet infrastructure of a modern first world data center. This is still simply not the case. Your supplier representatives are probably located at their factories in the middle of Nowheresville in the Lost State of Third World Country and might still be on a 1.54 Mbps T1 connection, which is only up on good days. Their data centers might be located in the nearest city, which barely has enough electricity to meet demand on a good day (when the AC or Heat is cranked up in every home and building), and subject to occasional rolling brown-outs. And so on.

The fact of the matter is the software should assume that suppliers can, and at least one supplier representative will, lose connection during an event. And if this happens, the supplier still needs to be able to bid. A modern platform allows for each supplier representative to designate one or more proxy bidders, in priority order, and if the main rep is unable to establish, or maintain a connection, the software will detect that and automatically switch the bidding designation to a proxy (who will be view only until he or she needs to take over bidding). In addition, the loss of connectivity and change of delegate will be noted and the buying organization notified.

In addition, it will detect if multiple supplier representatives lose connectivity, assume there is a major issue, automatically suspend the event, and notify the supplier representatives through other means (e.g. backup emails, fax, and/or even SMS) that the event has been suspended and will pick up either the designated back-up time or at a time to be communicated by the buying organization as soon as the issue has been identified and resolved.

This is necessary not just to maintain good supplier relations, but to prevent costly legal challenges, especially in the public sector, if an organization lost because it couldn’t bid through no fault of its own (and could prove that it was willing to make the lowest bid which, in many jurisdictions, requires the award to be given to that organization). But yet, a [large] number of auction providers (of the 50+ that the authors collectively know about) do not provide this capability.

Curious to know what the other four requirements are? Then check out our full piece over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required] on What To Expect from Best-in-Class Reverse Auction Technology and User Design (Part 2).