Category Archives: Technology

How Do You Find an Innovative New Vendor? (Repost)

Last summer, Brian Sommer over on ZDNet ran a great post on how to easily identify the up and coming innovative vendors in the space. All you have to do is look at who the big established players are trash talking! After all, if the company isn’t innovative, they have nothing to fear from the competitor, and will say something like “yes they also have a solution suite that could potentially help you, but” … “they are missing these key features that we have found to be instrumental to customer success” or “we have done more implementations in your space” or “we have a more mature professional services organization” or “we fit better with the platforms and processes that you have in place” or “we are more committed to customer success” or “we have won more awards proving the maturity of our solution” and just shrug them off. But if the company is innovative and poses a real threat, they will try to trash-talk it out of your candidate pool. And they will use predictable language like “what they are offering is a cool feature, not an application” or “they’re inconsequential” or “their solution is immature and / or will never catch on“. These phrases are your first clue that this is a vendor you should be looking at. It might not be mature enough to meet all of your needs today, but maybe if you can bolt on the innovative new features they are offing to your existing ERP, you can, with a little elbow grease, extract more value and, as the company grows, be the first to take advantage of their new features and applications as an early adopter preferred customer.

And not only did Brian do a great job of pointing this out, he also created a great table that summarizes all of the common phrases an established, fairly un-innovative, company will use to trash talk an innovative startup in its infancy, a rapidly growing new competitor, and an upstart that’s all grown up now. And then, to complete the picture, he also points out what they say when the decide to acquire the grown up upstart because it has a more innovative solution.

Click on the image to be taken to the full table, and click this link to read Brian’s full post on the Software Smack Talk Playbook. It’s awesome.

The Complete Software Smack Talk Playbook

Who Is Your Vendor Really Working For?

SI has done a lot of posts on how to identify the right e-Sourcing/e-Procurement/e-Supply Chain vendor, over the years, but one question that is often overlooked, or left unstated, is “who is your vendor really working for“. You might expect, based upon their marketing and their business, that they are working for their customers who are paying them, but is this always the case?

To answer this question, we need to go back to the basics of how businesses are structured and funded.

A business is either public or private. A public business is funded entirely by revenue and has its performance judged by Shareholders and Wall Street. A private business is eventually funded by revenue but initially funded either by founders, third-party angels and/or VCs, or a private equity group. There are other business structures and funding arrangements, but these are the most common in our space. Let’s consider each of these.

Public

A public company will make an effort to work for you, but only so far as it does not hurt their Wall Street rating and does not cause the Shareholders to ask questions. They live and die by the stock price, so if the stock price falls, they will typically have to react by way of layoffs to meet whatever earnings number Wall Street has dictated, and probably layoff your account manager and the developer who was committed to your upgrades in the process. They work for you only so far as it doesn’t hurt them in the eyes of Wall Street which typically does not have the long term view you need as a Supply Manager. And while you’ll never get fired for buying from a big public company, you won’t be important to them, unless you’re a Fortune 100 and bringing them > 10% of their business. (And even then, you’re only important until they land someone bigger.)

Private – Angel & VC

Like a public company, a private company controlled by third party investors will make an effort to work for you, but only so far as it meets the objectives of the Angel and/or Venture Capitalists who are driving the board towards whatever vision for the company they believe will make them the most amount of money in the shortest time possible. And since Angels and Venture Capitalists are ultimately only concerned with the balance of their bank account, that vision will be whatever is sexy and likely to support a quick initial public offering (so they can get their return). If that means getting as many new customers in a year as possible to allow for a quick public exit, then all of the money and efforts will be directed towards sales and marketing and customer support and incremental product development and improvement will be an afterthought, if it is even given a thought at all!

Private – Founder Funded

A private company controlled by a founder, or a small group of founders, will be focussed on the objectives of the founder(s). If the goal of the founder(s) is to make money and grow the business organically, the company will have a razor-sharp focus on meeting each and every customer need that the customer is willing to pay for. If the focus of the founder(s) is to get Angel & VC funding as part of an ultimate goal to get the company to an initial public offering, because the founder(s) are vain and more concerned with public image and sex factor than quiet success, the company will work for you only so far as the founders feel it won’t make the company less attractive to the Angels & VCs that can help to take them public.

Private – Private Equity Group

A private company controlled by a private equity group will be razor-sharp focussed on the needs of the customer. Private Equity Groups exist to make money — and while they may sometimes take a company public, this is not their ultimate goal. They take a company public only when the opportunity is right and they’ve reached the point where they believe they can’t make more money growing the company organically over the long term. Generally speaking, private companies controlled by private equity groups will be boring as hell compared to the sexy companies driven by venture capitalists, but they will be the only companies that make you feel like you are the center of the business world, because, in the end, they need your money to pay the bills and keep the lights on. It’s their model, and the one model where you are always the center of attention.

So don’t forget to ask yourself “who is this vendor really working for” before signing on the dotted line. They won’t tell you (the truth), but if you look at their ownership structure (and the frequency of their press releases), you can figure it out.

As a final note, if you are still seeking spherical supply solutions (Part I, Part II, and Part III), you should take another look at the EU Supply Management software providers. Not only do they have more experience in international implementations, but most of their companies are controlled by private equity groups where as most of the North American companies are either funded by Angels and VCs or part of big public companies.

General Dynamics, Why Aren’t We On Mars Yet?

We’ve already conquered extra-planetary supply management with our ability to supply the International Space Station on a regular basis and keep our astronauts fed, which means the next challenge is for us to supply inter-planetary supply chains between Earth and Mars.

Fifty years ago today, Andrew Kalitinsky a spokesman for General Dyanmics told scientists at a two day symposium called “The Exploration of Mars”, hosted by the American Astronautical Society that a manned mission to the planet Mars could be launched in 1975 and would likely consist of a convoy of four multi-ton spaceships. (Fifty years and one day ago, one day before this announcement, NASA announced plans to send two satellites to Mars in November 1964 as the first step toward a mission.)

Since then, we’ve only successfully sent:

  • Mars 2, a Soviet probe that crashed into Mars in 1971
  • Mars 3, a Soviet probe that landed on Mars but stopped transmitting after 14.5 seconds
  • Mars 4, a Soviet orbiter that flew by the planet and sent back images and radio occultation data
  • Mars 5, a Soviet orbiter that transmitted 60 images
  • Mars 6, a Soviet fly-by / lander that failed on impact
  • Mariner 4, an American spacecraft that few past Mars on July 14, 1965
  • Mariner 6 and 7 American fly-by probes that reached Mars in 1969
  • Mariner 9, an American orbiter that was the first probe to successfully enter Martian orbit
  • Viking 1, an American orbiter/lander module that was the first spacecraft to successfully land on Mars
  • Viking 2, an American orbiter/lander module that was the second spacecraft to successfully land on Mars
  • Mars Pathfinder, an American spacecraft that landed a base station with a roving probe on Mars on July 4, 1997
  • Mars Global Surveyor, an American orbiter that entered Martian orbit on Sep 12, 1997
  • 2001 Mars Odyssey, an orbiter that reached Martian orbit in 2001
  • Mars Express, the European Space Agency’s (ESA) orbiter that reached Martian orbit on Dec 25, 2003 (giving the ESA a Merry Christmas 10 years ago)
  • Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, an American spacecraft designed to conduct reconnaissance and exploration of Mars from orbit that attained orbit on Mar 10, 2006
  • Rosetta, an ESA probe that flew within 250 km of Mars on Feb 25, 2007
  • Curiosity, the American rover that landed on Mars on August 6, 2012 (and may have spotted a Martian Lizard)

Not a single manned mission in the lot of them! And not a single planned manned mission in the next 10 years! the doctor wants to optimize those inter-planetary supply chains. GD, you’re 38 years late. Get a move on!

The Cloud is Not a Crystal Ball Either!

Despite the fact that I’ve told you that The Cloud is NOT a Fluffy Magic Box, given you More Reasons the Cloud is Not a Fluffy Magic Box, reminded you Yet Again, the Cloud is NOT a Fluffy Magic Box, told you that The Cloud is Filled with Hail, and pointed out that The Cloud is Not a Magic Mirror Nor is it Omniscient, it seems that there is a new brand of silicon snake oil salesmen who want you to believe that that the cloud is a crystal ball that you can use to talk to people everywhere in the world.

Just yesterday someone informed me that a new company is going around trying to sell a cloud business phone system.* What the heck is that? And how does it work? Do I walk outside and shout up to the sky? What if it’s a clear sunny day and there are no clouds in site? Or the middle of the night and I can’t see the clouds through the fog? And how does it handle inclement weather?

And no, the doctor is not being silly. Given that we don’t know what cloud really is**, and that, with (tele)communications, you HAVE to know the origin point AND the destination point, how the heck do you send a phone signal into the cloud and ensure it reaches the right person. Presumably it is built on dynamic, replicated, peer-to-peer IP routing, which sounds great in theory, but may not even be legal in practice considering your business might be in a locale where your phone system has to be 911 compliant. Since no one would know where the signal is coming from, this type of system would never be 911 compliant!

Basically, as I pointed out in Dogbert Translates Cloud-Consultanese, they’re pulling a Dogbert hoping to find a Pointy Haired Boss who will believe their mumbo-jumbo and buy their silicon snake oil solution at a ridiculous mark-up before anyone else in the company realizes that significant money has been wasted on betaware that’s not even as good as products you can get for free (like Skype and Google Voice, for example).

You’ve been warned!


* They didn’t tell me the name of the company, presumably to protect the guilty and give them a chance to smarten up knowing that this absurdity really grinds the doctor‘s gears and typically results in a rant.
** If Larry Ellison has to ask What the Hell is Cloud Computing, that’s telling!

What Costs Your Supplier More? Their Warehouse or Your SIM Practices?

I know this question is a little out of left field, but it’s an interesting question in that both are costing your supplier money and, therefore, both are costing you money (as all costs get passed up the supply chain in the end).

According to an article in DC Velocity last fall on how distribution centers lose thousands of hours a year on unproductive workflows (Nov 29, 2012), each worker loses an average of 15 minutes of productivity in an eight-hour shift due to process inefficiencies. Assuming these are union workers who get an hour for lunch and thirty minutes for breaks, that says that almost 4% of the work-day is being wasted. In a warehouse with 50 workers, it adds up to about 500 days of lost productivity, which is significant as this equals the salary of 2 workers, which costs the average company about $60,000 annually in the US.

Gartner estimates a typical company spends an average of $1,000 in supplier management costs annually per supplier. Part of this cost is Supplier Information Management, and, specifically, the (initial) creation and maintenance of supplier profiles consisting of contact information, insurance certificates, compliance tracking, and product catalogs, just to scratch the surface. While the amount of time to create and maintain this profile, and thus the associated costs, vary, on average it can be estimated to be about $700 as all of the major vendors and analysts seem to agree that a good SIM solution reduces supplier management costs, on average, by 70%.

Now, at this point, you’re probably asking what’s the point of this article as 60,000 is clearly much greater than 700 and there seems to be no comparison — but hold on! You have to remember one very important point — you’re not the supplier’s only customer. The supplier has other customers who, if they are implementing SIM, will also be delegating this work to the supplier who will have to create another, almost identical, profile, and upload all of the relevant information, etc. And today, you can assume that any major customer of the supplier is implementing at least some basic level of SIM given that they will be sued and/or fined seven ways from Sunday by the U.S. Government if they don’t insure the organization is not on a watch list, that payments are properly reported, etc.

If the supplier is a small contract manufacturer who only has 50 customers, then the supplier would be spending $35,000 just creating and maintaining SIM profiles. That’s one person’s salary. But if the supplier is a large office supplies vendor with 500 customers, that could theoretically be $350,000 worth of man hours to properly maintain all of the requested profiles. Ouch! (Needless to say, not all profiles are going to be accurately maintained in this instance!)

In other words, a sudden surge in the popularity of SIM combined with the slew of systems (not all of which are created equal) that are now available and being implemented by various companies will add a costly burden to your suppliers, as you don’t all use the same SIM solution and, even when there is overlap, not all SIM solutions allow a vendor to create one master profile and share the relevant information with each supplier who wants access to the profile. Done right, SIM is a great technology, but the problem with a lot of the (second tier) solutions is it’s not done right. Many of the solutions are built for the buyer and the supplier is a bit of an afterthought, resulting in a solution where a supplier needs to create and maintain an instance of their profile for each buyer. As a buyer, it’s imperative that you don’t buy, and encourage, such a solution because all this does is shift the burden to your already stretched supplier and doesn’t help anyone.

It’s important to make sure that any SIM solution you buy allows a supplier to define a master profile and share the relevant data with all relevant buyers on the platform with just a click of the mouse and allows the supplier to reuse pre-existing information whenever relevant. A supplier should never have to enter the same piece of information more than once. Otherwise, you’re wasting his time and your money. (A really good SIM solution would allow a supplier to import a profile he already created in a competitive product, but SI hasn’t seen that ability in the SIM solutions of any of the major players yet.)