Category Archives: Supply Chain

John Mavriyannakis on the Future of Procurement: Part II

In Part I, we described the 4 major trends affecting Procurement today that were identified by Deloitte in its research and consulting initiatives (and which have been addressed in publications that include “Supply Chain Strategy”, “Winning With Your Supply Chain”, and “Charting the Course: Why Procurement Must Transform Itself by 2020”) that were summarized nicely by John Mavriyannakis, a Senior Manager at Deloitte Canada (and the Practice Leader in Sourcing, Procurement, and Settlement), in his recent presentation on Empowering Modern Procurement that was given as part of the Coupa One Vision Roadshow in Toronto

Specifically, John Mavriyannakis identified the following four trends:

  • Margin Pressure
  • Supply Chain Risk
  • Government Regulations
  • Talent

As a result of these trends, it is clear that today’s supply managers need to:

  • control margin pressure,
  • mitigate supply chain risk,
  • stay ahead of changing regulations, and
  • win the war for talent.

But that’s not going to be enough for a Procurement organization to succeed in the long term in the dynamically changing global marketplace. If they wish to survive, Procurement and Supply Management organizations need to rethink mission and capabilities. Specifically, they need to:

  • get strategic
    and establish a formal organizational presence that ties metrics to company performance,
  • transition
    to re-aligned processes and responsibilities that focus on business outcomes,
  • task talent cross-functionally
    to enhance the procurement capability of the organization as a whole, and
  • tie it all to technology
    that blends service and management tools that are easy to use and that allow for the right level of control.

While keeping in mind that they need to get to the 2020 Procurement and Supply Management organization in just 6 short years (which is no easy feat given that the average transformation time that is required for a Global 3000 organization to become a world class Procurement organization, according to The Hackett Group, is at least 5 years). In 2020, Procurement, according to Deloitte, is going to (need to) be:

  • the keepers of the global supply and demand perspective,
  • the nexus of finance, operations, and supply chain,
  • risk forecasters,
  • the arbiter of risk vs. reward,
  • the value-generation unit that is the treasure trove of ideas, and
  • talent rich.

And SI fully agrees with all but the last of these predictions. In addition, it partially agrees with the last prediction that Procurement is going to need to be talent rich to achieve the goals that are set before it, but given the lack of investment in talent to date in the average Procurement organization, SI isn’t sure that the talent is going to be where it needs to be in 2020. Even though talent has been in the top three Procurement issues for at least the last three years, it’s still in the top three budget items that are cut every year in these tough economic times, even though a small investment in talent can lead to a (very) large return in savings in a Procurement organization. (For example, one of the first companies to certify their entire department with the SPSM designation offered by Next Level Purchasing, a 1 Billion furniture manufacturer, doubled their annual savings only one year after completing the certification on the department level. That’s a double digit ROI multiple in one year! Compare that to the 2X or 3X you might get from automating manual processes.) Basically, the most successful Procurement organizations in 2020 will be talent rich, but the average Procurement organization will be struggling at the current rate of training and talent induction into our space.

John Mavriyannakis on the Future of Procurement: Part I

John Mavriyannakis is a Senior Manager at Deloitte Canada and the Practice Leader in Sourcing, Procurement, and Settlement who recently gave a presentation on Empowering Modern Procurement as part of the Coupa One Vision Roadshow in Toronto. Through its regular CPO Surveys, CFO Surveys, and its Source-to-Procure experience across 1000+ projects for 300+ clients, which made it #1 in the Procurement Consulting provider in the global Procurement Consulting marketplace, Deloitte has built up a considerable understanding of the current state of Procurement [which it has captured in a number of publications, including Supply Chain Strategy (Deloitte), Winning With Your Supply Chain (Deloitte), the CFO Surveys, and Charting the Course: Why Procurement Must Transform Itself by 2020 (Deloitte)].

According to Deloitte, Procurement today is dealing with 4 major trends, which are going to continue for the foreseeable future:

Margin Pressure
Margins are getting tighter and organizations need to be looking at least ten years ahead to determine future (labour) arbitrage opportunities, which are becoming increasingly more difficult to leverage as emerging economies emerge and produce middle classes with higher wage expectations (and transportation costs increase to make up the difference). In addition, the fact that price volatility has increased 57% in the last 12 months hasn’t helped matters any.

Supply Chain Risk
Due to the increasing interdependence and extensiveness of supply chains, risk is increasing, as illustrated byt he fact that 85% of surveyed organizations experienced at least one large scale disruption in the last 12 months. The increased risk is a big issue given that companies announcing supply chain disruptions had a 30% lower supply chain return compared to the benchmark group.

Government Regulations
Regulatory compliance issues have resulted in high-profile, high-cost shutdowns in recent years and with 2/3rds of CPOs admitting that their companies are only in the early stages of compiling information required to meet the recent SEC reporting changes, this is not a good state of affairs as the SEC reporting requirements are only one of a plethora of reporting requirements an international company that is importing and exporting on a daily basis around the globe needs to be compliant with.

Talent
Given that 76% of CPOs feel that their staffs’ skills need improvement or have a significant gap, talent is on the radar in a big way. And not just any talent — with 91% of the 60% of CPOs planning to change their operational model announcing a shift to center-led or centralized supply chain operations, this means that over half of the talent that is required needs to be effective in these type of Supply Management models.

So what does this mean? We’ll discuss tomorrow in Part II.

Perks and pitfalls of knowledge diffusion in the supply chain


Today’s guest post is by Professor Ralf W. Seifert & Olov H. D. Isaksson.
Ralf W. Seifert is Professor of Operations Management at IMD and he teaches in the “Leading the Global Supply Chain” (LGSC) program.
Olov Isaksson is a PhD candidate at the Chair of Technology and Operations Management at EPFL, specializing in buyer-supplier relationships. He previously worked at Henkel as a supply chain project manager.

Do you collaborate with, and learn from, your suppliers, or are you serving them the knowledge to compete with you head-on on a silver platter? This question is increasingly relevant in today’s global competitive environment. Firms are routinely leveraging global sourcing to gain cost advantages but competition nowadays occurs between supply chains, rather than businesses. Thus keeping an eye on your supplier’s ambitions is vital.

Case in point, just look at the ongoing patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. Apple turned to Samsung as a supplier for its new iPod and iPhone products back in 2005. At first the two companies jointly developed the components, which gave Samsung an insight into Apple’s technology and operations. Being the only supplier for the processors, Samsung also gained critical knowledge on Apple’s prediction of the market size for the iPhone. In 2010, Samsung launched its own smart phone and has since become Apple’s largest competitor. Today, Apple still remains dependent on Samsung, but it is trying hard to diversify its supplier portfolio.

The above situation exemplifies the negative aspects of knowledge spillovers in the supply chain — i.e. how important knowledge that exceeds the scope of the formal transaction can be diffused between customers and suppliers, and then be used in a rivalrous manner. At the same time, spillovers can also have positive effects and lead to a competitive advantage for the supply chain as a whole.

How does your desire to draw on trading partners for innovation balance with the need to protect strategic knowledge? And, to what extent do you take co-competition from suppliers into account in your supplier assessments? We engaged 34 executives from different high-tech firms and asked them about their opinion. Their consensus: recognizing knowledge spillovers is a critical issue in today’s supply chains. Both suppliers and customers are seen as important sources of information for innovation (see Fig 1).

“We get plenty of valuable information about the market, its players in the value chain and its main drivers from our customers and suppliers. My business relies on it. It is a great input for our R&D portfolio,” said Dr. Ir. Kees Joziasse, Director of Innovation at Corbion Purac.


Figure 1
While most high tech firms protect their innovations through patents, most of the executives stress that knowledge spillovers occur outside formal collaborations — to a large extent via personal interactions between employees of the firms (Figure 2).


Figure 2
Greg Nelson, Sr. Director R&D LED Systems at Philips highlights that employees possessing important knowledge must be conscious of the risks and rewards of knowledge spillovers when interacting outside the firm:

“Knowledge spillovers in the supply chain are a clear attention point. There is a need to create awareness up front with people who have these contacts and to have an explicit policy regarding what can be transferred. Policy restrictions must be balanced with the potential benefits that can be derived from collaboration and not hinder speed in the process. While policies and procedures are not always 100% effective, they do help create awareness in the organization to guard against unintended transfers.”

The Supplier Perspective

While a supplier can learn from its customers, it cannot choose who wants to buy its products/services. Still, Ted Smith, EMEA Sales Director at ON Semiconductor suggests that firms can leverage knowledge spillovers and gain a competitive advantage by carefully choosing collaboration/innovation partners.

“We typically don’t select which customers to do business with, but we do select customers to innovate with. We work with selected alpha-customers, or early adopters, who support supplier innovation in return for a head start in the market.”

The Supply Chain Perspective

Good and enduring partnerships can lead to a competitive advantage for the supply chain as a whole: Mukesh Singh, Senior Regional Manager at BASF explains that “Suppliers easily share their new learning/knowledge if the customer has a strong supplier relationship management program.”

However, it is important to agree upfront how innovative output that is generated in a collaboration should be divided. Dan Negrea, Managing Director AEMtec GmbH and Chief Technology Officer at ECMS exceet, elaborates:

“We strictly consider the background and foreground intellectual property (IP) in our cooperation with partners. The background IP is a source of information “for free.” The foreground IP is normally shared between our company and the customers. Product related IP goes to the customer and process related IP stays with us. In most cases, cutting edge products require the parallel development of a product and a manufacturing process.”

The Customer Perspective

Most executives viewed knowledge spillover as a positive phenomenon. Reflecting on the Apple-Samsung example, others might beg to disagree. Managers do need to protect important knowledge from potential competitors and patents offer only limited protection. Thus, strategic supplier assessments and a detailed supply chain contract are vital to mitigate this risk. If the knowledge in question is critical, in-house production or vertical integration of the supplier might still outweigh short-term gains.

Takeaways

Knowledge spillover readily occurs in your supply chain. Managers need to be aware of the risks of negative leaks, which can have detrimental consequences for the firm. At the same time, knowledge spillover can offer significant benefits for your supply chain if suppliers leverage newly acquired competences to your advantage. These are our recommendations:

  • Explicitly recognize the potential of knowledge spillovers in collaboration and sourcing decisions up-front! What do you need to protect from your competitors? Are there limitations in your supply chain contract? To what extent can your enforce non-use, non-disclosure and non-competition clauses in a global marketplace?
  • People buy from people. Make sure that employees are aware of the risks and benefits of knowledge spillovers! Create an appropriate policy regarding disclosures and interactions outside the firm!
  • Have a clear strategy with regards to each supply chain partner! Do you want a win-win situation or to squeeze a supplier? In collaborations, clearly agree upfront how innovative output shall be divided! If the knowledge is strategically important, in-house production or vertical integration of the supplier might be the safer option.


Thanks Ralf and Olov for this interesting take on Supply Chain collaboration.

Market Disruption Forces Supply Chain Change

 

Market Disruption Forces Supply Chain Change

Despite what the title of this recent article on “disruptive market drives supply chain change” over on Just Style might suggest, market disruption does not drive supply chain change, it forces it. However, the article is right when it notes that having an efficient and fast-reacting supply chain should be a must for any brand or retailer.

The difference is slight, but important. Driving implies there is some guidance to the movement. But the nature of disruption, especially in today’s supply chain, does little to guide an organization that needs to respond, and do so quickly. The organization is forced to change, because failure to do often results in a change in liquidity status from profitable to bankruptcy.

And it’s not just demographic shifts that a retailer or brand needs to react to, but disruptions further down the supply chain. Even if a brand can react quickly to a change in consumer preferences and adapt its main product line to have the look, feature, or ruggedness demanded by its target customer base, if a fire takes out its main manufacturing plant, or a labour dispute cuts off production of a needed rare earth metal, or an act of piracy results in its shipment being stolen, what is the brand going to do?

Organizations need supply chains that can react fast, but they also need supply chains that are informed even faster. In order to react, supply chains need multi-tier visibility into critical product lines, such as the visibility that Resilinc can provide. Otherwise, all the market intelligence in the world on changing consumer consumption patterns won’t do them any good if they don’t see that a critical even in their supply chain prevents them from being able to react accordingly.

 

Early Payment Discounts vs. Early Payment Rebates

Are we dealing with six of one and half a dozen of the other? After reading “The Art of the Play” (PCubed.com), I have to wonder.

They are different in that you get one right away and you get the other later, and they are different in that one is just a reduction in spend and the other can be treated as an income stream, if the CFO so desires, but in the end they both have the same effect on the bottom line — less spend.

So why would an organization favour one over the other when the big difference is capturing the savings now versus capturing the savings later? If the organization was limited in cash and was trying to maximize savings, then capturing the savings right away would definitely make more sense, but if the organization was flush with cash and the supplier offered tiered rebates that improved with volume, then the organization might want to wait until later. Otherwise, the doctor can’t see much of a difference.

However, one area where there is a big difference is paying for a platform vs. paying for a service, especially for a big company. For example, the Oxygen Finance model described in the article is to provide you with a service where you pay up to 50% of the discount or rebate captured by transaction. While this is a good deal for a mid-sized company that might not have the up-front cash required to implement the end-to-end e-Procurement solution required to effectively take advantage of discounts and rebates offered by suppliers for quick payments, this can be a very expensive solution for a large enterprise. Consider a company that spends 250 Million a year, the low-end of the market for Oxygen Finance. If the average rebate is 1.5%, and you give one third of that up to the service provider, then the organization is paying 1.25 M a year for the solution, and only achieving a 2X ROI.

A company of this size can acquire a SCF solution for a fraction of this cost and realize a much larger ROI.

When you dive in, you realize that there are only three reasons most companies can’t create or take advantage of most of the early payment discount and rebate opportunities available to them:

  1. Invoices aren’t getting in the system fast enough
    because most of them are coming in as (e-)paper.
  2. Approved invoices aren’t getting to AP fast enough
    because routings for approval take too long.
  3. Procurement doesn’t have the manpower to negotiate rebates on 100% of spend
    because there are too many suppliers.

And while these were valid problems a few years ago, without (m)any real solutions (that an average organization could afford), today:

  1. An organization can acquire a SaaS end-to-end invoice automation framework, such as the one offered by Nipendo, that will convert all incoming invoices into one standard e-format for six figures.
  2. An organization can acquire a number of rules-based e-Procurement and invoice automation solutions (including Nipendo‘s) that will automatically approve and route all error-free invoices that match a PO or contract to the AP system and route those that require manual correction or approval to the right individual for online (e-mail) approval.
  3. An organization can see significant returns addressing only 80% of the spend which is typically with less than 20% of the supply base.

An organization that takes this approach can typically acquire a solution for (much) less than 500K a year, save 1.5% on 200 M of spend, and see a (minimum) 6X return, which is the return you should be looking for from an e-Procurement solution.

Maybe there’s another reason for a large enterprise to go transaction-fee SaaS for discount and rebate management, but if there is, the doctor ain’t seeing it — and he’s been covering SCF for years. As far as he is concerned, the sweet-spot for transaction-fee SaaS for discount and rebate management is the 50M to 250M range, because the implementation cost of the necessary end-to-end e-Procurement, invoice-Automation, and SCF solution isn’t that much cheaper for a mid-sized organization than for a Global 3000, and at less than 200M of addressable spend, the ROI multiplier starts to drop considerably.

Any differing opinions?