Category Archives: Supplier Management

DnB’s Mobile Capability is Good But …

… it’s no substitute for the real thing.

There’s been a lot of hype recently about Dunn & Bradstreet’s new Supplier Risk Manager Mobile functionality, and a lot of coverage on the blogs. I’m not going to say it’s undeserved, as it is one of the first enterprise applications in the supply chain space to make an effort to embrace mobile computing, but I’m not going to hype it either.

The reality is that while D&B are advertising three capabilities, there is really only one real use for the offering (and I’m pleased to say that, when grilled, they readily admitted it), which is:

determining whether or not an alert needs to be acted on now, or later.

A properly configured Supplier Risk Management System will be configured to send out alerts anytime something might need to be looked at — as the system will be ignored otherwise. When an alert is sent out, the first thing that a recipient needs to do is determine how serious the alert is and whether or not more research needs to be done and/or an action needs to be taken. With the mobile platform, that works on ‘Berries, ‘Droids, and iPhones, a risk manager can drill into the alert and see why it was issued (reduced credit score, late shipments, plant shutdown, etc.) and then drill into the supplier profile to determine what effect the reason for the alert could have on the supplier and/or the relationship. The manager can then determine if the alert needs to be followed-up on or not, and if the follow-up (whether additional research, a call, or another action) has to happen now or later. This is useful if the manager is on the road and doesn’t have easy access to the regular application or if the manager is just enjoying personal time and doesn’t want to drop everything to run to the [home] office to figure out whether or not something needs to be done — which could be the situation if the alert is for a major supplier of critical inventory.

The mobile app also allows you to search for suppliers and look up (random) company profiles, but let’s face it, that’s not something you’re going to be doing when you’re on the road or on personal time — especially when it’s so much easier on the full application. It’s neat, but you’re only going to be doing it when conduction sourcing events back at the [home/hotel] office. In short, it’s good, but don’t place unreasonable expectations on it, or they’ll be dashed.

To Optimize Supplier Management, Balance the Three R’s

A recent article over on Supply & Demand Chain Executive gave us seven steps to “balance supplier risk versus reward”, the two classic R’s of supplier management. And while it was a great article with seven pieces of great advice (if properly followed and implemented), it may not be enough to truly succeed going forward. There is so much risk at so many levels in today’s global supply chains, that it’s unlikely that the buyer can do enough to balance the end-to-end risk versus the reward without the supplier’s help — help that can be hard to come by if there’s nothing in it for the supplier. In other words, something is still missing.

But before we try to put our finger on the missing piece, let’s review the seven steps offered up by Byron Tatsumi of KPMG in the S&DC Executive article.

  • Define and Prioritize Supplier Tiers
    The most critical suppliers (to operations or revenue) should get the most attention.
  • Utilize Risk Assessment Processes for New Requests
    Regardless of whether the request is against a new or existing supplier. A supplier great at manufacturing electronic components might not be so good at machine parts and vice versa.
  • Implement Ongoing Supplier Due Diligence
    A supplier that is not considered a risk today could be a significant risk in a year and vice versa.
  • Utilize Balanced Category Scorecards
    And look at metrics and performance across the board — cost control, quality control, inventory control, etc.
  • Adopt Robust Performance Reporting and Issue Resolution
    That goes beyond a dangerous dashboard to highlight good, bad, and, most importantly, missing data to help you identify potential issues before they materialize.
  • Maintain Category Market Research Profiles
    Markets are volatile and dynamic. Tomorrow’s costs, and primary cost drivers, can be very different from today’s. Don’t source using last year’s data.
  • Implement a Supplier Six Sigma Program
    With the goal of continuous improvement in mind.

These are all great steps, and they will all help to get better performance from a supplier which will reduce a buyer’s risk and increase a buyer’s reward, but not all risks are supplier risks. Some of your most critical risks could be upstream risks in your supplier’s supplier’s supplier. While balanced scorecards and a good Six Sigma program might be sufficient to convince a first-tier supplier to implement some basic supplier management programs on their end, chances are that, without the right incentive, they won’t be enough to convince the first-tier supplier to work with its critical second tier suppliers to implement corresponding programs. It doesn’t matter if the first tier electronic components manufacturer has the best supply management program in the world if its second tier sub-component manufacturer doesn’t have any programs in place to insure continuity of supply of raw materials and basic inputs from third-tier suppliers.

Without some incentives, it’s unlikely that a first-tier supplier operating on a razor thin profit margin is going to take the time and energy required to transfer the modern supply management processes, that the buyer spent significant time and money on, to second tier suppliers. For that, there’s going to need to be some remuneration involved — the third R. If the supplier is rewarded for decreasing risks, lowering response times, and increasing quality, then it is going to have some incentive to helping its suppliers decrease risk, lower response times, and increase quality. If, instead of focussing only on penalty clauses, the buyer instead includes some reward clauses for improving performance, it’s likely that overall risk will decrease while buyer rewards (fewer stock-outs, fewer returns, etc.) increase as well.

Share This on Linked In

How Much Can You Really Save If You Switch Suppliers?

I was a little flabbergasted by this recent article over on SupplyManagement.com on how “switching suppliers will save billions” in the UK. While there are often savings to be had if you are willing to switch suppliers, the reality is that the savings, once the total cost is calculated and the total value derived, is never as much as you expect, especially if the product you are buying isn’t a true commodity. And even if it is, there are other considerations. Consider the following categories:

  • Office supplies
    Okay, you can always get a better quote. But remember that delivery charges often aren’t fixed (and will usually increase beyond the average rate of increase by the local delivery company) and the better the deal you get on negotiated SKUs, the more they’ll overcharge you on anything off contract (and, if you’re not watching, charge you even more than what you would pay in the office supply store down the street). The “loss leader” is always designed with your loss in mind.
  • Communications
    Okay, you can always get a cheaper (mobile) plan. But the cheaper the plan, the more you pay on overages, roaming, and long distance (LD). Have an executive with an unpredictable travel schedule? Watch your roaming and LD costs skyrocket! Have an organization where 20% of users don’t fit the basic plan profiles? Watch your overage costs skyrocket! For every penny you save, you’ll lose it somewhere else.
  • Janitorial Services
    You’ll always find someone cheaper. But they won’t necessarily do as thorough a job, and if you’re not careful, they might skip the background check and you might come in some day to replace the backup drive only to realize that the backup drive is gone!
  • Contingent Labour Management (CLM)
    You’ll always get a better quote, but the less a CLM firm gets to fill a position, the less incentive they have to spend the time to find the best person for the job, especially if your competitor is paying them more to fill that same position. And, in the long run, the few hundred you save costs you a few thousand (or tens of thousand) in productivity losses.
  • Custom Manufacturing Services
    You’ll always get a better quote, but what will you sacrifice in quality? And what if they put lead in the paint, melamine in the milk, or bisphenol A in the plastic? Then what?!?
  • Advertising Services
    I’ve no doubt that you can cut any quote in half, but advertising isn’t about cost, it’s about the revenue it helps you generate. Is it really worth hiring a B player at half the cost when the A player is five times as likely to come up with a campaign that helps the organization double sales?

So while you should definitely be willing to change suppliers, don’t rush a decision and be sure to let your current supplier compete in the go-to-market if they have been serving you well. Sometimes all they need to find savings (either by being more aggressive on margin or on innovation and finding more creative ways to serve you at a lower price point) is a little incentive. And remember, it’s not worth switching for 5% that will never materialize unless it’s a multi-million dollar contract. And even then …

Share This on Linked In

What’s the Fastest Way to Lose a Supplier?

It’s a good question, but is it one that has a statistically backed up answer? I have to admit, I don’t know, but I’d like to.

Recently, I came across this article over on the Get Satisfaction blog on the “fastest way to lose customers”. According to the article, the top three reasons that customers leave a company are because:

  • they move to the competition
  • they are dissatisfied with the products and service
  • they don’t like the treatment they received

However, most of the time, it’s because they don’t like the treatment they received. In fact, that’s the case seven (7) out of ten (10) times.

But how often does a supplier leave when they don’t like the treatment they receive? My guess is not very often. As long as the bills get paid, suppliers will put up with a lot more than customers, even if they shouldn’t. However, go long enough without paying your bills, and your suppliers will probably bolt faster than lightening after serving you with a summons. However, depending on order size and frequency, it could take a while before the amount owed is enough for the supplier to drop you.

So what is the fastest way to lose a supplier? And how do you prevent it from ever happening?

Share This on Linked In

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