Category Archives: Supplier Management

You Are Invited to the Wake For Strategic Sourcing


Today’s guest post is from Dalip Raheja, President and CEO of The Mpower Group (TMG) (former leader of the Strategic Initiatives Group for Bank One and former Principal of DEC) and a contributor to the News U Can Use TMG blog.

You are invited to the wake … the tab is on us!! This will be the last of our posts on the Death of Strategic Sourcing. It has become clear to us that most of our community is generally in agreement that we need fundamental change.

For those that still need a bit more convincing, you can look at an interview (Next Practices Innovators Award – Executives Who Elevate Our Function) with Lamar Chesney, CPO of SunTrust Bank and the keynote speaker at the 2010 Aberdeen CPO (Chief Procurement Officer) Summit, whom I first met at Tim Cummins’ IACCM conference earlier this year. Tim was kind enough to provide me with a stage and Lamar and I ended up having a follow-up conversation over some drinks (ummm, I think it was called Scotch!!). If a very senior and highly respected current practitioner is generally in agreement, then I think it’s time to move on. If you need further proof, there is a very interesting report by Kevin O’Marah (“Supply Chain Almost at the Table in 2010” at blog.seeburger.com) at Gartner that clearly points out that even after 25 years, we’re still not there. While the initial numbers look very good, it becomes clear when you dig inside the numbers that the picture is not quite as rosy as we think. “But before we get too excited about this trend, it’s worth asking whether or not the business really knows what supply chain is all about. Only 29% used the label ‘supply chain’ to describe this leader. Nine percent called it ‘procurement’. Another 9% chose the label ‘operations’, while yet another 7% said ‘logistics’. Forty-three percent of respondents were unable to find the functional title for their highest-ranking supply chain executive among these terms“. Bazinga!! Or, as Paul Harvey used to say, “and now you know … the rest of the story“. Basically what Kevin points out is that even though we may have made some progress, we are clearly not there yet.

What is interesting are the views that Supply Chain organizations have about their role. According to Gartner,


“The most encouraging facts revealed in this research have to do with the expanding view supply chain has of its own role. … In terms of priorities, although the No. 1 overall stated goal is still cost oriented (56% chose ‘reduce operational costs’ as one of their top-five priorities), the No. 2 is ‘improve customer satisfaction.’ And even though they’re lower on the list, competitive imperatives such as product innovation, or ‘getting new products to market faster,’ (28%) and risk management (24%) rated significant awareness”.

Two points I would like to make here. First, please note that cost continues to define us, but even more importantly, the second point is that this is supply chain’s view of its own role and I would humbly submit that at the end of the day, it matters not what we think of ourselves but rather what our stakeholders think of us. And I would further submit that if asked, most of our stakeholders would view us through the cost prism and not much else. And here is the money quote from Kevin: “Supply chain has a lot to do with whether or not a company wins its competitive battles, and it’s trying to get the rest of the business to see this. It’s time we get our story straight“.

If you need further proof, take a look at the recent cover story in CPO agenda that screams out “When do we get to SRM?”. Here are some of the statements that strike a chord with me:

  • “… For all of the potential benefits, many organisations have struggled to make it further along the road to supplier relationship management than the contract monitoring stage ..”.
  • “SRM activity is about value creation, not cost reduction ..”.
  • “The best suppliers are going to be in demand ..”.
  • “Those organisations that take the SRM approach with a supplier are more likely to be seen as a preferred customer … the benefits of SRM show it is about more than process and procedure. It also requires the right behaviours, skills, resourcing, and organisational backing to ensure it delivers to its maximum potential”.
  • “The skills required for SRM are different from procurement’s traditional strengths, which underlines the importance of the people question — not only in development terms but in deciding whether it is procurement that should carry SRM responsibilities ..”.

 

That last quote should be very disturbing for us in the community because essentially the point being made is that procurement organizations are so mired in the traditional mindset of cost reduction that they don’t have the right competencies, and this is leaving value on the table. OK, so far that seems to be in line with what I said in Old MacDonald Was Right — It Is About E-I-E-I-O!), in The Sourcing Emperor Has No Clothes! and in Strategic Sourcing is Dead!!! (The Debate Rages On!). CPO Agenda even goes a step further in stating that perhaps Procurement is not even capable of handling such an important responsibility and perhaps it belongs somewhere else. Hmmmmm, I hope they are ready with their chain link armor to absorb the arrows headed their way because at least we were saying that we are more than capable of leading the charge on value.

Here’s what Jeff Dobbs, Global Head of Diversified Industrials for KPMG, had to say: “almost four in ten now acknowledge that driving down costs has damaged relationships with their suppliers“. “Those businesses that continue to follow the traditional low cost or bust models in supply chain management are at risk of losing a foothold in the market. … the expected marketplace winners are entering into strategic relationships with suppliers that not only deliver product, but provide innovation as well …”

Clearly, KPMG is also pointing out that this cost focus has actually destroyed value along the way. In fact, if you read the entire article, they point to this as additional risk being introduced by the sourcing organization.

Before wrapping up this conversation, I would be remiss in not pointing out the other part of the argument. Even if you think that you are a truly strategic organization that is adding significant value, we would postulate that there is still too much of a focus on the consonants (tools, process, technology, etc.) and not nearly as much as needed on the vowels (Adoption, Execution, Implementation, etc.). Even someone who has been called one of the greatest communicators ever (Obama) is now acknowledging that he paid way too much attention to the legislation and policy (consonants) and not nearly enough to the politics and selling of the change (the vowels). Whether you agree with him or not politically, he is clearly pointing out the imbalance between the two and how it has hurt him dramatically.

I would also point to the series of posts by the doctor recently, where he has been analyzing this whole notion of “strategic” and especially the last one on the one commandment of value. I like the simplicity of that. It’s easy to absorb and talk about. I would hope that we can all agree that the definition of value requires a fundamental shift in the way we think and conduct business and that value goes way beyond what most of us have defined and measure today. If all it means is nibbling around the edges and focusing on more spend analytics and risk frameworks, then I’m afraid that the doctor and I will agree to disagree.

To those that think this debate is “nonsense”, “the most laughable statement”, “nothing more than market pitches”, “a long winded rant”, “an outlandish attempt to call attention to the idea” … we wish you all the luck and success in the world. To the rest of the community, many thanks for the support and encouragement, let’s continue our conversations and focus them now on solutions. We have already partnered with IACCM to conduct a research project on some aspects of this issue and will continue to look for others who wish to engage in constructive confrontation. But for those critics that still refuse to concede, we are in the process of documenting a case study where this process was implemented at a Fortune 10 company with incredible results.

Thanks, Dalip.

Share This on Linked In

Want to Know How Well You’re Doing – Ask Your Suppliers

A recent piece over on SupplyManagement.co on “commit to canvass” reminded me that sometimes the best way to figure out how well you’re doing is to ask your suppliers. While benchmarking is critical, it won’t always give you the full picture.

For instant, just because your benchmark says you “order on time 99% of the time”, that doesn’t necessarily mean you’re doing a bang-up job of getting your orders in on time in the supplier’s view. For example, let’s say the contract says you’ll endeavour to get your orders in 14 days early, but “rush” orders can be put in with only 7 days notice. Well, just mark every order “rush” and make sure it’s in 7 days early and you’ll hit your on-time order target. But if the contract says that you only expect 10% of orders are going to be “rush” but 70% of orders are “rush”, how happy do you think your supplier is going to be with you?

And how will you know if the supplier thinks your “cooperative” problem sessions are delivering value? For instance, if you have team members who always end up doing what they decided before the joint session anyway, it won’t be “cooperative”, the supplier will see no value, and they’ll be upset at you for wasting their time.

You need to ask your supplier how you’re doing once in a while. And, to get brutally honest answers, you should make an anonymous survey a regular communication mechanism. Thanks to modern technology, they are cheap and easy to design, administer, and amalgamate. So ask you’re supplier how you’re doing. I guarantee you’ll be in for at least one surprise.

Share This on Linked In

Vendor Reference Checks

Do you know the right questions to ask?

For example, of the following eight (8) questions, four (4) are good, and four (4) are not so good. Do you know the difference?

  • What’s your relationship with the vendor?
  • How well has the vendor worked out for you?
  • Would you recommend the vendor?
  • Describe a situation where the vendor disappointed you and how they rectified the situation.
  • What are some things you’d like the vendor to do differently?
  • Have you had any major problems with the vendor?
  • Give one reason you wouldn’t recommend the vendor.
  • How do you interact with the vendor?

If you don’t know which of the questions will yield the answers you need to make a good decision in vendor selection, check out Charles’ recent piece on “Vendor Reference Checks: Worthless or Worthwhile”, because it’s not only what you ask, but how you ask it. (After all, a vendor will never give a bad reference.)

The Missing Key to Supplier Performance in most SRM Initiatives

Trust.

That’s right, trust. Specifically, trust in the supplier. Now it’s not always possible, but if the supplier is providing a strategic product or service, shouldn’t you be able to trust the supplier? If you have to monitor each and everything the supplier does, is that really a desirable situation?

And if you have a supplier that is trustworthy, you might find that less monitoring improves results, as the supplier wants to demonstrate that your faith in them is well deserved. (Furthermore, the supplier will have more time to focus on their work if you aren’t nagging them for an update every five minutes). As proof, consider this recent tidbit buried about 2/3rds of the way into this recent article in the CPO Agenda on “When do we get to SRM?”

“One contract, for example, was managed by more than one full-time officer but this was adding no value. We decided it wasn’t a strategic supplier and the contract would have performed automatically anyway. So we took away the dedicated officer with no detriment to the service. In fact, it resulted in the supplier feeling more trusted.”

Now I’m not saying you shouldn’t monitor contracts and results, but that it should be done in moderation and that the best scenario is one where monitoring is automated and you only need to get involved when early warning indicators indicate that there may be a problem. You want to be spending your time building a better product or service for the end customer, not wasting it double checking every little thing your supplier does … because, in that case, you might as well be doing the work yourself!

Share This on Linked In

To Really Be Successful At Supplier Risk Management, ADMIRE!

Not only is supplier risk at the forefront of thought these days, but articles on it are at the forefront of online publications as well, including this recent article in Supply Chain Digest on the key drivers of successful supplier risk management. However, most of the articles miss the point.

For example, according to this article, the trick to successful supplier risk management is to:

  1. engage top-level management,
  2. segment suppliers based on relative risk,
  3. rigorously measure and manage risk,
  4. give category managers tools and training, and
  5. collaborate with key suppliers.

Which is all good advice that is fine and dandy, but it misses the point. Risk management is all about identify risks, identifying mitigations, monitoring risks, and executing mitigations at the appropriate time. Management support is important, but it doesn’t have anything to do with risk identification or mitigation. Segmentation is a good tactic as more attention needs to be placed on suppliers which represent more significant risks, but again it has nothing to do with risk identification or mitigation. The same goes for giving category managers tools and training. Collaboration is relevant only if the mitigation requires collaboration. In other words, in this list, the only key driver is the “rigorous management and mitigation of risk”.

The reality is that success depends on your ability to ADMIRE the situation. Specifically, the ability to:

  • Ascertain the risks,
  • Define the risks that could cause significant damage,
  • Monitor those risks,
  • Identify appropriate mitigations,
  • React when signs of the risk begin to materialize, and
  • Engage the supplier when collaboration is required to mitigate the risks.

That’s it.

Share This on Linked In