Category Archives: Sourcing Innovation

Why Your Standard Sourcing Solution Doesn’t Work For Direct

Too many of you have been there. You sign that seven figure deal for that end-to-end Source-to-Pay suite, spend another seven figures and 18 months integrating with the ERP, PLM, AP, BI and existing Legal CR solutions, and then try to source your first NPI project natively only to … fail. Why is that?

They just weren’t built for direct.

And it’s not just something you can add in later. If the platform wasn’t designed from the ground up for direct sourcing, there’s zero chance it will ever do a decent job at it. (And, FYI, the majority of the S2P suites the big analyst firms are drooling over in their annual quadrants and waves started out as simple indirect Sourcing or Procurement tools.) People who don’t understand the nature of software don’t get this, but software has to be constructed like a building. You might hear vendors and techies throw around MVC model, which stands for Model-View-Controller, when they talk about how new and well architected their solution is, but that just means it’s built in a maintainable web-friendly way for what, and only what, it was initially designed to do.

It all comes down to the data model and the software architecture of the controller, and neither can be a black box. The data model has to be designed from the ground up to support bill of materials and direct sourcing and procurement data requirements. The controller has to provide the infrastructure to support the complexity of the application that is required. For those who don’t understand software, I like to put it this way. If you pour the foundation for a two story house, and buy wooden beams for all of your structure and supports, you can’t build a 10 story apartment building. You need a foundation for an apartment building and steel and concrete supports. (Even though you can theoretically build a 10-story structure on a two-story foundation if you have the right steel and supports, it won’t be stable. The slightest tremor on the Richter scale [which might not even be detectable by a human] or a strong wind will send it crashing down.) You need both. And just like you can’t replace the foundation under a building or replace the entire support structure in real life, you can’t do the same in code. You have to rebuild, usually from scratch.

So why weren’t they built for direct? Well, there are a number of reasons (besides they wanted to get a product to market fast and/or just weren’t smart enough to build a direct sourcing solution). They include:

  1. direct material sourcing is hard
  2. substitution is not guaranteed
  3. demand aggregation is not straight forward
  4. delivery time guarantees and on-time arrival is significantly more important

To understand these, and learn about the rest of the reasons the majority of sourcing solutions were not built for direct, dive into Standard Sourcing Technology Solutions Don’t Work for Direct – Part One and Standard Sourcing Technology Solutions Don’t Work for Direct – Part 2 over on Supply Chain Matters.

Do You Have Continuous Cost Control?

If not, you should, because with tariffs rising, markets falling, inflation out of control, sales dropping (as entire markets are cut off with sanctions and trade wars), we’ve gone beyond the point where every dollar counts to the point where every penny counts on every purchase because those pennies add up as every 100 purchases is a dollar and every 100,000 purchases is $1,000 and when money is as tight as it is now, that is actually value (especially for an organization making millions of purchases a year).

And right now, organizations are wasting a lot of dollars through the entire purchasing process. From poor sourcing strategy and process, to poor sourcing and negotiation, through poor purchasing execution, and poorer logistics management, to poor invoice and payment management. Every step without good cost control adds cost to the process, at a time when you need to be taking cost out just to survive.

And we know organizations are losing across the board because the following is required to keep costs in control:

  • good processes at each step
  • (near) real time market intelligence at each step
  • good systems supporting each step
  • continuous monitoring at each stage

And we’ve never seen an organization, even a best-in-class organization, that has all of this for their Procurement department. In fact, it’s rare to find an organization that has more than half of this. It’s now at the point where your organization may not survive if it does not have:

  • well defined processes for
    • supplier discovery and management
    • sourcing
    • contract award and management
    • procurement, on-and-off contract
    • invoice management and accounts payable
    • logistics and warehousing
    • ongoing analysis
  • (near) real-time market intelligence at each step
    • current, financially stable, accessible suppliers
    • current commodity costs, average overhead costs by region, tariffs, etc.
    • current best practices, standard clauses, and insurable risks
    • market availability, quality, delivery times, remaining contractual commitments
    • current entity information, payment terms, standard processing times, community intelligence on supplier OTD
    • carrier availability, costs, surcharges, etc.
    • changes in spend trends and curves, etc.
  • good systems/modules supporting each step
    • supplier 360 module (not just SIM/SRM/SPM .. all supplier data and interactions)
    • sourcing (RFX) management
    • contract negotiation tracking, signing, and ongoing management
    • e-Procurement that supports ALL purchases through the system
    • I2P with automated invoice processing and workflows
      (85% should be touchless on implementation, 95%+ over time)
    • logistics booking and carrier monitoring
    • best in class spend and performance analysis that updates at least daily
      (and regularly re-runs best-in-class trend and outlier analysis and alerts you to unexpected changes)
  • … with built-in alerting when something unexpected happens or doesn’t happen on schedule / as expected

And you don’t. But you need this now more than ever. So, if you don’t have:

  • processes, define them; they can be basic to start; for example, classic 7-step sourcing is enough to start (even though there are some more refined 11 step processes)
  • market intelligence, get yourself some; in particular, supplier discovery as some of your suppliers will go out of business, be unreachable, or get too expensive in the days to come; cost modelling for major spend categories to understand true costs for better negotiations because even if it only shaves half a percentage point on average, that’s still 500K on a 1M category (and you can get some of these solutions for under 100K a year), and those hundreds of thousands quickly add up to millions; and major news/event monitoring to pinpoint emerging risks as fast as possible
  • modules supporting the entire S2P process, acquire them; note that most of these don’t need to be BiC; for example, all of the major suites will tout the tens or hundreds of millions their big customers have “saved” with their solution, but what they won’t tell you is that at least 90% of that savings simply resulted from the client implementing a good process supported by a tool with a decent workflow solution; in other words, you don’t need the multi-million dollar solution (to start), you’ll see the same benefit from a six figure suite that is better than average in the key modules that matter to you (especially since it will take you years to master the new processes it will support, meaning that for a big suite, it’s usually five years or more before you can see more value than just going with a basic solution given that the journey to Best in Class, as determined by Hackett in the mid moughts, is at least eight years)
  • continuous data modelling and analysis, start now; with your spend analysis and performance tool updated at least daily

you need to make a plan to incrementally acquire what you are missing, most critical need first, until you do. (Remember, don’t try a big bang implementation. No matter what the vendor or Big X will tell you, those always end in big booms.)

Stop Being Clueless. It’s Time for Revenge of the Nerds!

Last week we tried to further demystify the marketing madness for you by clarifying that spend orchestration is essentially Clueless for the popular kids.

This is really important because there is no difference between a “spend” orchestration and a plain old “regular” orchestration provider, and neither provides any value whatsoever if you don’t have any spend management (i.e. procurement) systems in place to actually process the spend. Otherwise, the best you get is intake to nowhere … which just provides your stakeholders yet another avenue to ask “where’s my stuff” and another reason to say “I thought this new system was supposed to make you more efficient” and get more impatient when their stuff doesn’t arrive any faster.

In other words, unless you have a hodge-podge of best-of-breed systems that cover most, if not all, of the source-to-pay process, that don’t interconnect, and the systems are old and don’t support multiple roles (or charge full license fees for each user, even a 99% read-only role, that access the users), there is no value in an orchestration, as we’ve said many times (including in our post on how Marketplace Madness is Coming.

What you need is not spend orchestration but spend defenestration — you need to throw any and all unnecessary spend out of the window, and that requires spend investigation, need verification, negotiation, observation, and payment verification. That requires spend analysis, demand forecasting and management, fact-based market insight, adherence to contracts and plans, proper procurement platforms, and proper payment validation platforms.

Moreover, it requires proper utilization of these platforms. And that requires Human Intelligence (HI!), skill, and deep (deep) Procurement knowledge. Geek skill and Procurement nerdiness. The nerdiness to use a best-in-class spend analysis and seek out the opportunity that a pre-packaged analytics routine will never find (because you’ve already stared at that report ten times and found nothing after the second time [wonder why?]). The nerdiness to examine the forecasts and use best-in-class forecasting techniques on real (and up-to-date) sales and market demand data. The nerdiness to pour through market cost data for materials, standard overhead costs, energy costs, water costs, differential costs for different production models, and cost models presented to you by third parties and the supplier to pinpoint the right the model, the right data to feed it with, and the true production cost at different volume levels — and then use this in a fact-based market data negotiation. Then, when you cut an agreement, the nerdiness to make sure it is encoded in the right systems and properly executed on as well as the nerdiness to follow the market over time and detect any inflections that would require you to change direction. And, finally, the nerdiness to make sure the platform is configured to properly m-way match every invoice, detect any attempts to fraudulently change the amount, terms, and payee, and only pay for goods and services received on the agreed upon schedule. In other words, if you want to truly succeed at Procurement, forget about the Clueless — It’s time for the Revenge of the Nerds!

Sourcing Success in these Turbulent Times Require Long Term Planning and Cost Concessions

This originally posted on January 2 (2024).  This is being reposted, in case you missed it, due to the rising criticality of Long Term Planning!

In a McKinsey article a few months back on How medium-size enterprises can better manage sources, McKinsey said that small and medium-size enterprises often struggle to find Procurement cost savings. Yet there are ways to do it while still pursing growth and providing a superior customer experience. The article, which concluded with an action plan for procurement cost savings, recommended:

  • establishing CoE teams
  • improving forecasting
  • expanding (the) use of digital procurement tools
  • gaining greater market intelligence
  • establishing a culture of — and process for — continuous cost improvement
  • incorporating supplier-driven product improvements

which, of course, are all great suggestions, and mostly address four of the five reasons that McKinsey give that prevent companies from reining in spending, which included

  • a lack of spending transparency (which would have to be corrected to improve forecasting)
  • talent gaps (which can be minimized with the right tools, market intelligence, and CoE teams)
  • underused digital tools and automation (which is directly addressed by using more of them)
  • exclusion of procurement and supply chain in business decision (which would hopefully be a byproduct of a corporate culture for continuous cost improvement that only happens when procurement and supply chain is not involved higher up)

but the fifth is largely unaddressed — the myopic focus on the short term which McKinsey claims could be addressed by putting more effort into planning and forecasting. But that doesn’t solve the problem.

Better forecasting will allow for longer contracts to be signed for higher volumes, which can lead to long term strategic supplier relationships, and better planning can allow this to happen, but this does not completely address the need for long term planning.

Supply Chains today are not the supply chains of the last ten to twenty years.

  • rare earths are even rarer
  • many critical raw materials are in increasingly limited or short supply
  • transportation can be unpredictable in availability and cost; even though most of the world declared COVID over in mid-2022, China still had mandatory lockdowns, ocean carriers scrapped many of their ships for insurance (and in some cases, post-panamax ships that had never made a single voyage), airlines furloughed too many pilots who found other jobs or just flat out retired, and the long-haul trucking in North America (the UK, and many first-world countries) has been on a steady decline for over a deacde
  • ESG/GHG/Carbon Requirements are escalating around the globe and you need to be in compliance (both in terms of reporting 1/2/3 and ensuring you don’t exceed any caps)
  • human/labour rights are escalating and you have to be able to trace compliance down to the source in some jurisdictions; you need suppliers who insist on the same visibility that you do
  • diversity is important not just to meet arbitrary requirements for government programs or arbitrary internal goals, but to ensure you have the right insight and expertise to solve all types of problems that might arise

And you can’t effectively address any of these problems unless you think long term AND accept that some of the solutions will cost more up front.

  • In mid November, the trading price for Neodymium (a rare-earth that is critical for the creation of strong permanent magnets, which makes it possible to miniaturize many electronic devices, including the [smart]phone you might be reading this on) was over $87,000 USD/mt. In comparison, hot roll steel was around $850 USD/mt. In other words, Neodymium was 100 times more expensive than steel. And while you can still buy steel for about the same price you could 10 years ago (it was around $900 USD/mt), Neodynmium is almost $20,000 more (as it was around $69,000 USD/mt in November 2013). It’s not the only rare earth to increase about 26% in 10 years, with further increases on the horizon. You need to have a strategy to minimize your need (which could include product redesigns that use more sustainable alternatives or recycling strategies that use recovered materials from older phone models). And when it comes to recycled materials, due to a historical lack of recycling efforts, or research into technologies to make recycling efficient and cost effective, recycled materials are almost always more expensive at first. Always. But as adoption increases, plants, technologies, and processes get more efficient, and the cost goes down (while, at the same time, raw material prices for materials in limited supply continue to go up). In other words, if you want to mitigate the ever-increasing costs for rare earths and other materials that are in limited supply, you have to incorporate the use of recycled materials, and maybe even invest in your own plants (and recycle your own phones you buy back because it’s cheaper just to buy them back and extract the rare earths yourself than buy the recycled rare earths from someone else).
  • Global trade is costly and unpredictable. Supply assurance is finally dictating near-sourcing and home-sourcing (which SI has been advocating for almost fifteen years, as inevitable disaster was the logical conclusion of outsourcing everything to China as eventually a pandemic, global spat, natural disaster, or other event would send shockwaves through the world when it severely disrupted the trade routes [because even though the chances of a pandemic, natural disaster on the scale of Krakatoa or the Valdivia earthquake, or another catastrophic event is minimal in any given year, over the course of a century, it becomes very likely]), and that is going to require re-investing in those Mexican factories (that worked just fine, by the way) you shut down twenty years ago, training appropriately skilled workers in low cost North American (or Eastern Europe) locales, and paying a bit more per unit (and even transportation until the carriers rebuild those routes). But in the long term, as global transportation costs continue to rise, and the local-ish resources get much more efficient (using the best technology we have to offer), your costs, and transportation risks, will go down while your competitor costs continue to go up.
  • if you don’t insist, and ensure, up front that your suppliers can report the data you need, how will you get it; chances are those suppliers need help and modern systems, which temporarily increase their operational costs as they install, integrate, and learn the systems; not more than a few cents here and there per unit, but a noticeable blip on the overall costs none-the-less
  • if you want suppliers that monitor their supply chain and insist on no slave/forced/child labour, appropriately treated and well paid labour, and, better yet, a community focus throughout the supply chain (so that the humans who mine the materials, harvest the food stuffs, weave the silk, or otherwise do the foundational work have a reasonable quality of life, health, and safety), you’re going to have to put the effort in to find them and the extra money to support them in their humanitarian efforts; since most of these workers in remote low-cost locales are paid pennies on your dollar, it’s another blip on the total cost to ensure they are paid every penny they deserve, but it’s still a blip; but you can’t afford not to do it if your jurisdiction has laws making you responsible for slave labour that later gets discovered in your supply chain
  • and while diversity shouldn’t cost more, since it’s the same number of employees, the reality is that the supply base embracing it could be a minority, and if these minority suppliers suddenly become in demand, market dynamics may kick in and they may charge a premium that your competitor will pay; but, as new challenges continue to arise, you will need the diversity to solve them; so, another blip in the cost you need to absorb

In other words, you need the long term focus to guarantee success, and you need to understand that, up front, it may cost a bit more. However, done right, your costs will decrease over time while your competitors’ costs skyrocket. So if you truly want success, in any high dollar, strategic, or emerging category, plan for the long term. And you will truly succeed.

666+ S2P+ Solutions … But Key Problems Are Still Not Addressed! Part 2

In Part 1 we noted that, by now, you should have seen the Mega-Map and the 666 solution logos on it.

We also noted that you will have repeatedly heard the doctor and THE REVELATOR say repeatedly that another massive purge is coming to our space over the next 18 to 24 months (which will be the greatest since 2009-2011 where hundreds of companies were acquired, merged, or went insolvent), and that it’s already starting (with a few notable insolvencies, at least as far as the doctor is concerned, already occurring).

And you’ve heard us say multiple times that there isn’t room for this many companies because even if you account for market size and vertical, we still only need so many solutions that more-or-less do the same thing.

That being said, there are still core needs not being met in the modern enterprise, especially given that we are seeing a return to protectionism, sanctions, and border closings; a continual rise in natural disasters; and a continual disruption in logistics. Solutions are needed that go beyond siloed Procurement. And any company that steps back, analyzes the problem and the needs, and takes the time to define, and build, something truly new still has a chance to breakout and succeed in today’s overcrowded SaaS market.

the doctor is not alone in this understanding. Back in 2022, THE PROPHET saw this need to rethink Procurement Technology and that’s why he proposed his alt-suites. And while we believe he didn’t get them all right, some of the fundamental issues he saw and reasoning he gave, when expanded upon and thought through, will lead you in the right direction. Just like two of our last three suggestions were built on the core ideas behind his DFS [Design for Sourcing] (which was almost perfect) and A2M [Assess to Monitor] suites, two of today’s take some ideas from two of his suggestions as well.

4. Third Party Management (TPM)

Now, you’re probably saying “wait up, we already have that” since we have third party risk management and third party compliance management solutions starting to pop up, but those just represent a slice of Third Party Management requirements. Now you’re probably saying “but we have some very extensive supplier management solutions that do development and performance and they can be used” but the answer here again is that they represent another slice as they are not only supplier centric, but typically found in organizations that need to manage direct suppliers for quality and cost control — and typically not used to manage partners for consulting or implementation (which those systems have no capability to support).

Just like an organization needs a Risk 360 for it’s Risk Management function, it needs a TPM system to fully monitor and manage the third parties it works with, regardless of what it uses them for. Having separate systems for product suppliers (SXM), contractors (CWM), services providers [for implementation, integration, and support) (TPRM), etc. not only gives a fragmented view of the organizational partner ecosystem, but doesn’t even give a complete view for any single partner. A services partner may provide you with internal headcount (CWM) and third party service outsourcing (TPRM). A product partner may provide you with goods (SDM) and select services (TPRM). And so on. Plus, there’s also quality control systems and customer support systems that will have relevant data on the partner performance.

In other words, you can’t just Assess-to-Monitor from a Risk perspective, but you also need to manage and develop as well. And while you might think that Risk360 could be a sub-offering, risks go beyond the entities you are dealing with to include risks that are independent of partner and sometimes specific locations.

5. Vertical Enterprise Project Management

Now, before you say the doctor has lost it, because we have more project management systems than we can shake a stick out, the reality is that most of these “project management” systems don’t really manage projects across the enterprise, and most don’t support anything beyond timelines, milestones, and resources — not nearly enough to handle the intricacies of complex projects that involve the entire enterprise like NPD/NPI, building/facility construction, partner-aware supply chain (re-)design, and so on.

When THE PROPHET said we needed Commercial Value Management (which was defined as the next generation of Contract Lifecycle Management), he was onto something … because no one really “manages” contracts; no one really takes full advantage of what modern, advanced, contract modelling/creation/analysis systems can do; and no on ever pulls the contract out of the electronic filing cabinet unless there is a dispute … even though it is the foundation of the relationship and should be used as the baseline for relationship management. Commercial Value Management was defined to fix all that, putting the contract at the center of organizational “value”, but “value” is nebulous, and organizations have already proven time and again that they only thing they want to do with a contract is redline it, sign it, and resign it to the e-filing cabinet.

However, at the core of the CVM concept is an ability to manage projects off of the contract, projects that would span multiple departments throughout the enterprise. That is useful. If we focus in on that and then realize the problem with most “generic” project management solutions is that they don’t meet specific organizational needs because every vertical has its own unique project needs, we can see that what enterprises need is true enterprise-wide project management support tailored to its vertical. Software that understands the intricacies of construction/facility construction and how it requires the coordination of sub-projects with many contracts and subcontractors, as well as temporary assignment, use, and return of equipment. Software that understands NPD in electronics and how the quest to even determine if you are going to design a new mobile personal computing device will require input from the entire company tailored to electronics project design, component and supplier identification, supply chain design, customer support, etc. Software that understands the unique aspects of identifying an organization’s needs before, during, and after the rip-and-replace of an ERP system and all of the project aspects that will be required (process analysis, data analysis, gap analysis, integration requirements, change management, training, etc.). And while there are tools to support the core activities in the core departments, none take an enterprise view and, further more, can link into the TPM system, ERP/Inventory/HR system, CLM system, etc. and take a truly enterprise view of project management customized to a vertical.

And while it’s possible that someone could build a baseline solution that can support multiple verticals, the front end and customizations required will require separate offerings for each vertical that company goes after. Efficiency, which should be the goal of technology acquisition, cones from supporting integrated processes, not piecemeal tasks.

6. Real-Time True Enterprise Analytics

This is a bit of a cheat in that the doctor knows of one system that can do it (Spendata), but the reality is that the vast majority of enterprise analytics systems claiming to be “best in class” cannot. Even the majority of “best in class” spend analytics solutions don’t even permit true, real-time, do-it-yourself spend analytics.

At a minimum, a modern analytics system must be capable of:

  • pulling in any type of data from any source in real time (and mapping it to a structure that supports analysis)
  • allowing the user to define whatever rules are necessary for cleansing, enrichment, validation, and mapping to not only the internal structure but multiple, simultaneously supported, taxonomies for analysis
  • defining as many derived dimensions as necessary, on whatever calculations and metrics are required
  • supporting as many cubes as are required to accommodate the different data sources being pulled in
  • enabling federation across as many cubes as are required for the analysis
  • managing not only supporting multiple views across the federation, but linked views that support simultaneous drill down
  • creating arbitrary, reusable, filters that can filter on an dimension using any value, or calculation, as is required
  • enabling derived cubes, federations, and views as needed to support dependent, what-if, and problem specific analysis
  • performing data updates in real time, and then propagating those updates through all affected cubes, federations, and views as well as all derived cubes, federations, and views in real-time
  • permitting a user to do all this, on demand, in real time

Most current Business Intelligence (BI) solutions are still based on ROLAP, at best, and all analysis is done against fixed cubes that are updated on a schedule (or on demand, but the entire cube needs to be recalculated before any analysis can be done). They also generally support fixed view types on the provided ROLAP cubes, and an analyst is very limited in terms of what they can do.

The same goes for most Spend Analysis systems. The providers support a fixed number of cube types, give you a default set of reports and dashboards, and you are limited to customizing views on those cubes and dashboards. Building whatever you want, whenever you want, from scratch is out of the question, as is real-time data updates. The best solutions will allow you to bring in additional data to augment your analysis, but unless it’s in the main database, it will be lost when the analysis expires, which is whenever the core cube is updated as only one of these solutions currently supports true inheritance.

In other words, a Strategic Spend Terminal is not enough. Not even close. In fact, it’s just one view, tailored to Sourcing, on the federated data sets that such a next generation analytics solution will support. In fact, there should be multiple strategic spend terminals, one per business unit that shows them the data they need the way they need to see it to allocate their time and effort accordingly.

Until analytics is rethought at the core, users will never be able to do the what-if analysis they need on different data types to get the insights they need when they need it, and AI won’t solve the problem. AI allows for better predictive analytics IF you have the right, verified, structured, data and IF you know the right AI algorithm to apply to the question at hand with the data you have. If you don’t have the right platform, AI is ultimately useless.