Category Archives: Technology

Why Your “Peers” Buy Stupid Products


Since we’re on the topic of technology acquisition, which for many of you translates into SaaS renewals, it’s a great time to dig this post up from the archives, that was originally posted on 6-Jan-2010, on why your “peers” buy stupid products because it’s a great education on the pitfalls you could fall into if you lose sight of the goal.

For a while, I was thorougly confused as why your not-so-enlightened peers (who aren’t the smart and sexy leaders and innovators that you are, as they don’t constantly educate themselves and read industry leading blogs like this one) buy stupid products. While there are a number of great products out there, which I attempt to profile here on Sourcing Innovation as often as circumstances permit, there are also a number of bad products out there (which fall into the “products I don’t cover” bucket, which, to be fair, also contains “products of vendors who still think new media is a fad not worth spending time on” [even though they should probably be covered on SI]). This mix includes some really bad (installed) products that, year after year for reasons that escape me, keep selling, often for obscene amounts of money — especially when you consider what these products actually do compared to what newer, leaner, meaner, SaaS products do for a fraction of the price.

After a few enlightening conversations with some old pros and highly intelligent consultants (who shall forever remain nameless to protect the innocent), I have realized it is either because

  1. the buyers are timid field mice afraid to make a mistake;
  2. the buyers are lazy and inept, they know it, and they don’t want anyone to find out; or
  3. the buyers are yes-men and work for managers who are morons and
    • way too easily impressed by flash without substance; or
    • way too easily impressed by name dropping; or
    • (real) good buddies with (a member of) the vendor management team (who they just happen to be sharing a hotel room with on a regular basis)

In the first case, the buyers often look for the biggest vendor in the space who currently has the “best” reputation and simply use the “Well, no one ever got fired for buying IBM” excuse, replacing IBM with the “big” vendor of the day. This isn’t always bad, as some of the current “big” vendors do have some pretty darn good solutions, but it often is a bad choice because not all products in their “big” vendor solution suite are equal, and, most importantly, even the best product the “big” vendor has might not be appropriate to a particular company’s situation. An MRP won’t solve your problem if what you really need is an on-line RFX and e-Auction tool.

In the second case, the 9-to-5 buyers — who give intelligent, hard-working, and successful procurement professionals like you a bad name — are pretty sure that a good product would quickly uncover the millions of dollars of waste from unmanaged or non-compliant spend, or quickly uncover the lack of process that allows maverick spend to run unchalllenged, or quickly uncover the sheer amount of work they are not doing but should be (like managing spend, sending out RFPs, doing post-bid briefings, etc.) and want to do everything in their power to make sure that they get a solution that is as inept and inefficient as they are.

In the third case, even if the yes-men identify, and want, a good solution, Maury the Management Moron steps in and strongly recommends the worst solution identified (and indicates the buyer’s job could very well depend on making the “right” choice) because:

     

a) it has a nice flash interface with (useless) dashboards and colorful graphics-rich reports that make his under-developed brain go “ooh” and “aah” (while failing to tell you anything that you didn’t know already, like you spent 800M and your top 10 suppliers included 8 of the suppliers you regularly send million-dollar purchase orders to)

b) the company has a lot of “big-name” competitors as customers and / or a number of “big-name” companies your CXO really admires and, therefore, must know what they’re doing and be the right choice (even if they haven’t upgraded their solution in 5 years).

c) the company “obviously has a superior product” even though the real reason is that the company has one or more senior managers that are your boss’ golf buddies and/or hotel room buddies.

And sometimes, it is a combination of these reasons. The buyer knows he is lazy and/or inept, isn’t overly concerned with improving himself, but desperately wants to keep his job (which pays very well considering the amount of effort he actually puts in). He also knows he works for Maury the Management Moron who is easily impressed by flashy dashboards and pretty reports and so chooses a solution that will simultaneously make Maury’s mouth moisten while failing to uncover anything that could be embarassing and jeopardize his job in anyway.

For example, for our timid buyer with Maury the Management Moron for a boss, it would be really bad if he acquired a modern contract compliance system when he recently spent Millions on the current EIPP system two years ago and just found out it contains a big gaping hole, that a few of his suppliers have been exploiting since it was installed, that allows the supplier to charge whatever they want on substitutions and holds, regardless of what contract pricing is in place. For example, he just found out that if:

  1. he punches out for a SKU and
  2. the vendor is out of stock and
  3. the vendor places the order in the “on hold” queue because they don’t want to reject the order then
  4. when the SKU arrives and
  5. the vendor brings up the “on hold” order to “fill” it
  6. the price field isn’t carried forward to the “active” queue so
  7. the vendor can enter any price it likes, which is usually “list” and
  8. the system doesn’t do an invoice-price-vs-contract-price comparison, allows the “list” price, and doesn’t even flag it as pricing that violates the contract.

So, because he thought a few million would buy him perfect software (and didn’t do his homework), he just assumed everything was wonderful, paid what the vendors asked, and lost millions over the last couple of years. He’s not entirely sure how many millions, but is fairly certain that 15% to 20% of purchases were made off of contract pricing. He can’t let the boss find out! (Even though there are specialist consultancies out there who are great at finding these overcharges and helping their clients recover their money.)

Finally, he knows that his boss, easily impressed by flash, is too dumb to realize that dashboards, static reports and “real time alerts” are — when you really think about it — incredibly stupid ideas at the core. For example, so what if the boss can instantly see that 90% of shipments are on time. All that tells you is that 10% of the shipments are not on time. It doesn’t tell you what shipments, to whom, why, and more importantly, what to do to fix the situation. A report that you spend 10M with Wesley’s Widgets isn’t very useful. If that’s all I have, here’s how the negotiation is going to go. “We demand a 10% discount because we spent 10M last year.” ‘So? The price of steel went up 20% … you should be thankful we only raised prices by 15%!‘ “Uhm … erm …” If I don’t know what % was on steel parts, and what % of cost was steel in those parts, I can’t negotiate anything meaningful. And how useful is a “real time alert” at 3 am in the morning that tells you that your container is stranded 500 miles from port because the 3PL forgot to transmit the manifest 48 hours in advance and the carrrier isn’t allowed to enter American waters. Not! You need a system that tells you what you have to do before the order is shipped.

Vinnie Mirchandani on “The Costs of Software Renewal” (Repost)

This post was originally posted there years ago today on October 22, 2009. Given that three years is a typical mid-term renewal timeframe, I think it is important to review Vinnie’s advice as renewal season is now upon us!


Today’s guest post is from Vinnie Mirchandani of “Deal Architect” and “New Florence. New Renaissance”. Vinnie, a founding member of the Enterprise Advocates, is a tireless advocate of trends and technologies that can help buyers get more for less.

Ray Wang gives us a timely reminder that “Labor Day (US & Canadian Holiday) traditionally marks the end of summer BBQ’s, the beginning of the fall conference season, and yes, the time to begin a review of your software maintenance contacts that expire at the end of the year.” (Software Insider, Sept 1, 2009)

I would say start with that — and then keep going. Take a look at all of your contracts that renew through the end of 2010.

Several good reasons to this include:

  • Establishment of a savings target on the total maintenance spend for 2010.
    Have your staff focus on every software contract, especially those that have been “auto-renewed” for years now because they were “small” and fell under attention thresholds. If you make the overall target part of a compensation plan for key IT and procurement staff, you’ll quickly find that Thar’s gold in them yellowing software contract files.
  • Multi-year maintenance deals which looked good when signed may now be overpriced.
    Current market trends are driving the cost of maintenance down, especially through third party services. Don’t assume they cannot be re-opened. (See Marc Freeman’s tips for “renegotiating with integrity” on the ISM site.)
  • If you don’t start now, you might not finish the renegotiations in time.
    Don’t overestimate the ability of your team to get organized — or underestimate the ability of the vendor team to stall — beyond the end of the year. If maintenance expires, and something goes wrong, you could be at the vendor’s mercy in renegotiations. Formally document your new process and let the vendor know next year will be different. Furthermore, be sure to allow 6 months for the renewal negotiation next year.
  • Even if you are looking to migrate, you will still need incumbent vendor support until the cut-over occurs.
    This holds true whether you are looking to migrate away from the incumbent vendor to SaaS, or to third party maintenance, or to do-it-yourself support (and readers of Deal Architect will know I am a broken record on the subject of considering all of these options). This will likely push you into 2010 planning and funding.

So, use Ray’s call for intensity over the next 3 months and build momentum for another 12 months. The payback will be huge — software maintenance continues to be one of the items on the IT menu with the most “empty calories“.

Thanks, Vinnie!

Ten Tips To Top TMS

Inbound Logistics just published a good piece on “how to choose the right TMS for your company”. Almost makes me want to forget about that double play I recently scored against them.* Almost. 😉

Anyway, most of the tips in this article were dead on, even if some were a little obvious. By now, where Supply Management Systems are concerned, we all know that you definitely want to pick the right size provider, check references, try before you buy, check off all of your-must haves, and consider ongoing upgrades. The good tips were the following:

  • Time It
    Bring a stop-watch to the demos, and keep it by your side when you try it. Does it improve efficiency? If it doesn’t, what are you paying for?
  • Call Support Before You Buy
    If you can’t get through now, do you think you’ll get through later?
  • EDI is Essential
    Whether it’s EDI, XML, API, etc., you need to be transmitting and receiving all your documents electronically. If you have to pay by the bit, watch out! There shouldn’t be transmission fees when internet connectivity costs are fixed. You can be damn sure your provider isn’t paying by the bit, they’re paying a fixed cost for a dedicated 100 MB feed to their data centre. The cost for EDI should be a low, flat rate per month (up to a certain GB limit, because if the provider goes over their dedicated transfer rates, they will pay overage charges and have to pass them on).
  • Count the Cost in Money and Time
    It’s not just the cost of the TMS — it’s the cost of the TMS, the hardware, the connectivity, the integration, the training, the support, etc., etc., etc. as I have outlined repeatedly (and given you a spreadsheet for). But that’s just the hard cost. If the system takes a long time to set up, a lot of manpower to maintain, and decrease efficiency when compared to the current system, then the ownership costs will continue to pile up over time.
  • Can it Be Customized?
    This may not be that important for you, but if it is, and the system can’t be customized effectively and cost efficiently, find a new system – ASAP.

For the rest of the advice, see the article on “ten tips to choosing the right TMS for your company”.

*We’re not mysterious. We’re Canadians!
The Best Way to Insure Routing Guide Compliance

Will Factories in a Box Revolutionize Sustainability Initiatives?

Gizmodo just ran a very interesting, and vey insightful article on how “The Next Industrial Revolution Starts in this 20-foot Shipping Container” about Re-Char and their “Shop-in-a-Box” that can perform rapid fabrication of steel parts by way of software and a CNC plasma torch. With the Shop-in-a-Box described in the article, Re-Char can produce 600 lids for Climate Kilns. This is a specialized lid-and-chimney integration that adapts a 55-gallon drum to produce the soil amendment biochar. (In Kenya, farmers burn sugarcane debris in an open field and release tons of carbon. A Climate Kiln controls the burn to produce the carbon-rich charcoal biochar that, mixed into soil, reduces the fertilizer requirements for crops by half.) This required the precision cutting of 18-gauge metal, which, in East Africa, leaves you the option of using a guy with an oxy-acetylene torch on the side of the highway or importing a full production run out of China, one full shipping container at a time. But for 30,000, Re-Char was able to produce a Shop-in-a-Box metal cutting and joining setup that could be run by two two people and produce 600 lids as a time, when needed, where needed (as the shop in a box can be moved to a new community when the needs of the current community have been fulfilled).

From a sustainability perspective, this is incredible. It’s lean, green, and completely against the routine. Actually, lean is an understatement. The power requirements are limited to what is needed to produce the lids. The energy required just to light, cool, etc. an average factory typically takes a 600 V feed … or two … or three. It’s green in that it can be powered by sustainable energy, including wind power, water power, or solar power – whatever is available. (Transformers come with the standard kit, along with generators for [natural] gas power for stability. Just add batteries and a UPS and it’s 100% green power most of the time.) And it’s completely against the routine. When the industrial revolution started, you can be that the robber barrons never predicted a moveable factory.

To date, the most (wide-spread) innovative use of containers has been data center modules, with Google a leader in this technology. (But this has been taken to the next level. For example, Green Data Center has designs for completely self-contained data center modules that you can drop anywhere. Just hook-up a power feed and an internet feed, and you’re literally good to go. (And since you can easily put a generator, or two, in a second container, you don’t even need a power feed. Just a natural gas feed, split between a couple of generators if you don’t have a sustainable power feed, for a primary feed.)

But we don’t have to stop at data centers and steel-part fabrication shops. Especially when we are talking about the developing world (which still includes much of Africa, South America, and parts of Asia). Do we really need to refine cane sugar 2,200 kgs at a time, for example? Or how about water purification? If we’re talking about a small community of a couple of hundred people, and the primary focus is clean drinking water, we don’t need to purify 100,000 liters a day! Purifying 1,000 liters would do nicely! Both processes would fit nicely in a container system. (After all, the sugar refinement process is not radically different from micro-brewing in terms of what is needed, and you could fit that nicely in a container too — although we can’t necessarily bring the same humanitarian arguments if we did.)

And when we’ve insured that everyone has the absolute necessities of clean air, clean water, and healthy food — we could ship them clothing factories in a box. It doesn’t make sense to sew shirts in sweat-shops on another continent just to ship them to small communities in Africa, or South America, or Asia, where the living wage is $2 a day or less. Considering the shipping costs alone, you couldn’t set the price at a point where you’d make many sales. Just ship a container to the town, train a few locals on the cloth-cutting production lines and find a few budding seamstresses to do the stiching, and produce the clothing where it will be sold. A zero-mile supply chain that emits zero-carbon and has zero shipping costs. And since you don’t have time-sensitive fashion industries in developing economies, you could even rotate it between a few small communities in the beginning while the consumer base and local economy built up. (Hopefully you’d also move the employees too if they were willing, as you could outfit another container as temporary living quarters without much cost or effort.)

I think the physical manifestation of the Solution-in-a-Box approach has the potential to revolutionize manufacturing, distribution, and sustainability. And it’s not like we have a shortage of containers thanks to the outsourcing craze of the last fifteen years. They’re just sitting there waiting for a good use. And with all the super-panamax ships, and super-panamax capable ports, that we have at our disposal, we can get them from any continent to any other continent with ease, in bulk, and pretty close to where we want them. And then we just need a freightliner to haul them, and there’s no shortage of those.

Will Resilinc Resonate With Your Supply Chain?

On Monday, we introduced you to Resilinc, a new player in Supply Management that provides a Decision Support System (DSS) for identifying and evaluating risks in your supply chain if you are in the high-tech, medical device, and automotive space and have vast multi-tier supply chains.

We noted that Resilinc is unique in that it is able to provide an overall risk score, delivered in terms of the relative revenue impact of a disruption, for each location and each product; give you the ability to determine the impact of an external event in a given location with respect to specific supplier locations and sourced products; and identify with locations and products are likely to be impacted by a significant event anywhere in the world as soon as it happens. But we didn’t address another aspect of why Resilinc is unique and why they might shake up the risk management space.

Resilinc was founded, and the technnology was designed, and built, by risk management practitioners in the high-tech / device supply chains, and they have added experts in the medical device and automotive supply chains. One of the difficult, and unique, aspects about risk management is the differences in impact and effect of a supply disruption across industries. In some industries, like automotive, bringing a production line back up is not as simple as getting the missing parts or raw materials; in others, like electronic manufacturing, it’s not as simple as substituting one microchip for another if they have different input/output and voltage specs; and in others still, like medical device, it’s not as simple as switching suppliers when one runs out of production capacity as the industry is heavily regulated and it is often the case that all suppliers must carry certain certifications and insurance policies. Without practitioners who understand the specific requirements, and the differing severities associated with each type of disruption, you never get the right models. And if you don’t have the right models, you have zero chance of producing the right metrics and measurements.

For example, the founder, Bindiya Vakil, has served as the Program Manager for Supply Chain Risk Management at Cisco and the Supply Chain Manager at Solectron. Summit Vakil has worked in product management and leadership roles in Brocade, Cisco, and 3Com.

In addition, they recognize the criticality of solid Supplier Information Management as a foundation, and brought in Jon Bovit, with a long history in SIM at Ariba, Aravo, and CVM, to insure they got their unique functionality-focussed SIM model right for the problem they are tackling, which is different from the problems the standard SIM players are focussed on. (For example, in risk management, it really doesn’t matter where the headquarters are and whether you spend 100K or 100M with the supplier. A hurricane could shut down the headquarters and have no effect on your supply chain but if a supplier is sole source, even if you only buy one part, and only spend 100K, if the absence of that part could shut down the production line, that supplier is still a huge risk if they are located in a high risk zone.)

And their CEO is formally trained in Supply Management. She has a Master of Engineering in Logistics from MIT with a thesis on Design Outsourcing in the High-Tech Industry and its Impact on Supply Chain Strategies. Not many companies these days have a CEO who is technically competent in what the company actually does. It is my belief that having a CEO who knows what the product has to do, and how it should do it, greatly increases the chances that the company will develop the right products. (Because when you don’t, you get devices that light-up when they’re off and drain the battery until they die, and million-dollar toilet paper dispensers that limit you to 5 squares. Don’t laugh. Both have happened.)

So while Resilinc, like all new technology platforms, may carry a technology risk, for those of you in the high-tech, medical device, and automotive industries, I believe that it is more likely that it will resonate with your supply chain.