Category Archives: Technology

TradeCard: Transaction Management for the Global Supply Chain Part II

In yesterday’s post we introduced you to TradeCard, a supply chain management services and trade finance company that provides an end-to-end SaaS transaction management solution that connects over 4,000 buyer and supplier companies across the world with local support in over 50 countries. This solution, which implements end-to-end transaction management from the cutting of the Purchase Order to final settlement (including chargebacks) with support for financing, document management, 3rd party freight forwarders, and factory floor shipment packaging, is one of the most extensive SI has seen with respect to visibility into the three critical supply chain flows — financial, physical, and information.

We discussed the financial flow, which supports pre- and post- export financing, payment protection, invoice discounting, and settlement with their Procure-to-Pay solution; the physical flow, that is supported by their collaboration, Factory Xpress, and document management solutions; and the information flow, which is supported by the aforementioned solutions along with the TradeCard Advantage and Custom Objects Toolkit solution. Today we are going to dive into the physical flow and the solutions that support it.

We’ll start with the collaboration solution. Designed with forecasting and supply planning in mind, the solution allows for forecast and purchase order data to be pulled from your ERP / forecasting system / system of record of choice and pushed back when the production plan and/or purchase order is complete. Forecasting revolves around (rolling) supply plans, that can be completed from a material, supplier, forecast, inventory, (material) commitment, or demand view. Buyers and suppliers, who are given permission, can edit the forecast, and the revised forecast can be maintained along side the original forecast. The forecast can be at the product level, or the component material level, as the platform has equal support for component and 2nd tier raw material suppliers, who can also be given (read or edit) access if relevant or key. The system also allows the scheduled production runs to be collaboratively decided upon (and updates the projected inventory automatically). There are no built-in forecasting models at this time, but that may change in a future release. (In the interim, Tradecard can integrate any forecasting system that can provide data in a standard format such as EDI, XML, or CSV.)

The UI is similar to many web-based supply management platforms, and includes a “taskboard” that keeps track of all of the current tasks for the current user, which can be ordered by action type, transaction, or assignment date. With respect to transactions, which the suite is designed around, a user can query and track transactions by purchase order, invoices, payments, packing & shipping, financing, (goods) receipts, contracts, adjustments, events, and customs filings in addition to supply plans. Purchase orders are extremely detailed and can contain all of the information required by the supplier, freight forwarders, and any customs authorites (including order terms, parties, freight terms, destinations, items, components, additional terms, and required documents). This allows for the easy generation and submission of appropriate trade and customs documents (with over 10 import and export document formats supported out-of-the-box). The system maintains complete document history and allows an authorized buyer to query exactly who did what when. Events allow the buyer to track the transaction after the PO is issued and record actual production, shipments, receipt, distribution to warehouses, returns, chargebacks, and other relevant events.

Factory Xpress is the “shop floor” solution that is designed for the personnel who are actually packing and shipping the orders. The users can access, and (if they have permission) edit the packing plans, create and print packing slips and/or shipping labels, and even scan appropriately barcoded labels to indicate when an order has been packaged and shipped. In addition, orders for packing labels and materials can be sent directly to Avery Dennison, whom the solution was developed in conjunction with. The system supports bulk packing, multi-packing, and free-packing plans and can automatically regenerate packing plans based upon changes in order quantity, delivery location, carton sizes, or item mix. Once the shipment has been packed, packing manifests can automatically generated from the packing plan and purchase order.

One very neat feature of the platform is the “discrepancy preview” that a supplier can run before finalizing the invoice. When the discrepancy preview is run on a draft invoice, it compares invoice data to shipment/packing manifest data and PO data and reports all discrepancies in pricing, order quantities, factories, origins, destinations, and other comparable data and checks that all terms and/or documents have been completed. This allows the supplier to correct any data that can be corrected before the invoice is sent, minimizing the chance of the buyer rejecting it or sending it back for correction. It also allows the buyer to verify that the invoice they received is consistent with what they expected, or if its not, immediately determine what the discrepancy is and whether or not it was approved (due to a change in forecast or demand).

With respect to reporting, there are dozens of built in report types and the user can select the attributes and value ranges for each report, but TradeCard does not yet possess a generic report builder tool, although custom reports can be created by way of their Common Objects toolkit if required. However, complete export of all in XML and CSV format is supported and the buyer can use a third party data analysis and reporting tool to construct whatever report they want for more detailed analysis.

Finally, the TradeCard platform currently supports English, Traditional, and Simplified Chinese with Spanish coming later this year, and most implmentations, which includes integration to your ERP and forecasting systems, and onboarding of 80% of your relevant supply base, and user training, are accomplished in 90 days. It’s a solid solution and one worth looking into if you need to manage end-to-end transactions across the global supply chain.

TradeCard: Transaction Management for the Global Supply Chain Part I

In yesterday’s post on how it’s sourcing, procurement, and global trade management, we mentioned how a critical part of global trade is finance and document management. One company that facilitates this process is TradeCard, an end-to-end SaaS transaction management solution that connects over 4,000 buyer and supplier companies across the world with local support in over 50 countries. And while they aren’t the only company that facilitates this process, with notable competitors being Integration Point and their extensive suite of import, export, and supply chain compliance solutions and TradeBeam with their import, export, and visibility solutions, they are the first solution that I’ve seen that implements end-to-end transaction management from the PO to final settlement (including chargebacks) with support for financing, document management, 3rd party freight forwarders, and factory floor shipment packaging. Furthermore, their solution, which supports the physical, financial, and information flows from all parties, focusses on the alignment of the flows.

The financial flow is supported by way of a procure-to-pay solution that enables pre- and post- export financing solutions, payment protection, invoice discounting, settlement, and chargebacks. Through agreements and alliances with over 25 banks, insurers, and other third parties, the TradeCard platform allows a suppier to request financing as soon as the purchase order is received. Then, depending on the supplier’s credit rating and the amount of the request, the request will be forwarded to one or more financing partners who will offer financing at standard terms or the TradeCard credit line, where the TradeCard platform can automatically grant certain financing requests under standard terms on behalf of the partners in the financial network.

The time of the financing request is flexible. The supplier can request financing at any point from the receipt of the purchase order to the receipt of goods by the buyer, and might even be able to request financing beyond receipt of the goods by the buyer, depending on the buyer’s standard payment terms. In addition, the platform allows the supplier to offer invoice discounting on early payment by the buyer as soon as the invoice has been accepted. Finally, the platform allows for electronic payments, which completes the end-to-end financial lifecycle of the transaction.

The physical flow is supported by their collaboration solution, which allows buyers and suppliers to collaboratively share current demand data and collaborate on forecasts and production plans, the Factory Xpress solution that allows for the creation and execution of detailed packing plans, and the document management solution that allows for the creation and transmission of documents that are required by freight forwarders, customs agents (for import and export), and distribution centers.

The information flow is supported by their Procure-to-Pay, Collaboration, and Factory Xpress solutions as well as their TradeCard Advantage solution that allows for queries and reports across the platform and the transaction data that it contains. It’s also supported by their new Custom Objects Toolkit that allows TradeCard to quickly create custom extensions — that can take the form of integrations, reports, or global trade documents — for customers on an as-needed basis.

By integrating the three flows, TradeCard provides a single view into the global supply chain for buyers, suppliers, factories, and partners around the world, which can be integrated into the platform as needed. TradeCard can, and has, integrated multiple ERP, best-of-breed, and home-grown sourcing, procurement, and global trade solutions into its platform in support of its hundreds of global Fortune 3000 customers. Furthermore, over 150 service providers already inject services into the platform in the form of financing, payment protection, inspection, and logistics, which a customer can take advantage of day one.

Tomorrow’s post will dive into the physical supply chain flow and the solutions that TradeCard provides.

Do You Really Think It’s A Good Idea To Have Your Head In The Clouds?

eWeek.com recently published an article on how “many data centers [are] unprepared for disasters” that’s downright frightening. According to the recent AFCOM “State of the Data Center” survey that polled 358 data center managers from around the world,

  • more than 15% of respondents said their data center had no plan for backup and recovery,
  • 50% of respondents have no plan to replace damaged equipment after a disaster,
  • 65% have no plan to deal with cyber criminals!

Well sufferin’ cats!

This says that if you outsource your data center management, you have a:

  • 15% (1 in 7) chance of losing your data
  • 50% (1 in 2) chance of being down for an extended amount of time after a natural disaster
  • 65% (13 in 20) chance of getting screwed if you’re targetted for cyber crime.

Do you really like those odds?

When It Comes to Tech, Sometimes I Think Analysts Should Get Out of the Game

Especially if they don’t have a degree in technology! Even if they have 30 years in the tech industry, because, at some fundamental level, they just don’t get it and ultimately end up making a suggestion that not only makes everything more complicated than it has to be but confuses the heck out of the average person.

So why am I ranting again? Supply Chain Brain republished an article by a Gartner analyst on Suite Versus Best of Breed: The Argument Rages On that, to be honest, impressed the hell out of me until I got to the second last paragraph. The author nailed the pros and cons of enterprise suites before beautifully exposing the advantages and disadvantages of of best-of-breed with the precision of a master craftsman and then concluded, with deft clarity, that best-of-breed vs. integrated suites is not a good basis to guide application selection (which is a reality that not all technology analysts seem to be aware of). But then, just when I was about to applaud Gartner for publishing such a fine piece, the author not only goes on to say that the solution is a “new model” (which is scary in itself as most analysts have no idea what a real “model” is or that there’s a big difference between “framework” and “model”), but goes on to say that the model is something called pace-layered application strategy. WTF?!?

I’m a PhD in Computer Science with fifteen years designing, building, leading, and consulting on the design, architecture, integration, and implementation of enterprise software systems, with expertise in algorithms, data stuctures, computational geometry, optimization, mathematical modeling, relational databases, automated reasoning, and some areas of semantic technology … and I didn’t have a sweet clue as to what he was talking about. (So how is an average non-technical person supposed to know what this means?)

So I made the mistake of looking it up. Of course, the first result from a Google search is a Gartner page to a locked article that describes pace layering as a “new methodology for categorizing applications and developing a differentiated management and governance process that reflects how the applications are used and their rate of change”. Buzzword Bingo anyone? The next few results are no better — all buzzword summaries of this “great new thing” that you apparently can’t get any information about unless you’re a Gartner client (surprise, surprise) [unless you’re really good with Google].

So I decided to take a step back and look up pace layering before I dove deeper into the Gartner grief. According to this post by James Governor over on RedMonk on “why applications are like fish and data is like wine”, pace-layering is an idea from Stewart Brand where complex systems can be decomposed into multiple layers, where the layers change at different rates. The “fast layers” learn, absorb shocks and get attention; the “slow layers” remember, constrain and have power. One of the implications of this model is that information architects can do what they have always done — slow, deep, rich work; while tagging can spin madly on the surface. This is a good way to build systems, and embodies the best practices of a hybrid agile development model where one team iterates rapidly through a UI and the business logic, through regular interaction with the end users, to hammer out what it is that the system really needs to do while another team slowly builds a powerful, flexible, scalable and robust back-end that can accomodate an evolving business landscape. But there is a big difference between best-practices for building a system and best-practices for selecting a system.

First of all, you can’t implement an enterprise system in a couple of weeks, test it out for a few weeks, and then throw it away if it doesn’t work. Implementations (and integrations) take considerable time and investment. Secondly, there are no “fast” systems in the average enterprise. Once you implement something, you typially have it for years either because it takes that long to see value or it takes that long for the enterprise to agree on something new. Thirdly, the hybrid agile development approach that pace layering describes does not care if you are developing a system of record, a system of differentiation, or a system of innovation whereas Gartner’s pace-layering application strategy relies on a company being able to make this distinction because each has characteristics that apparently suggest ERP / Suite vs. Standalone Module / Best of Breed vs. Modified Best of Breed / Custom App.

And while each of the characteristics (on page 17) that Gartner identified in their recent webinar on “ERP Strategies: Exploit Innovations in Enterprise Software” (PDF slides) are important considerations in technology selection, there are two major problems with the approach.

  1. Technology selection is never that simple across the board.
    If the organization is a large enterprise that is slow to adapt to new technology and implements new systems infrequently, then an ERP suite from an established, stable, vendor that has been around for ten years (and that is likely to be around for ten more) is probably the best answer. But if the organization is a small, new, (but) growing enterprise that is quick to adapt to new technology and always looking for, and implementing, new solutions, then the best solution might be a new best-of-breed application from a smaller provider that is more cost effective and innovative (because, in the worst case, if the vendor goes belly up, the organization can always move to a new solution, and, if the new solution was 1/10th the cost of the ERP, still save a bundle even when the migration costs to a new system are factored in).
  2. It’s not about the framework — it’s about the solution
    and if you follow a framework, sooner or later you’ll choose the wrong system — and pay dearly. For example, the pace layer governance framework recommends best of breed for a function where differentation is key. This says that if you want to implement next generation sourcing strategies, you need a best of breed system. Not true. Many next generation sourcing strategies have nothing to do with technology. They are about business value, and with the exception of true spend analysis or decision optimization, can be accomplished with commodity e-Negotiation functionality, which even the ERP suites have in spades. If the organization is technologically behind, or needs a lot of support, it should probably go with a suite from a big player with the resources, and experience, to support it and then bring in a consulting firm, with access to (and expertise in) best of breed products to help with the spend analysis and decision optimization, where and when required.

In other words, another framework is not the answer. The answer is, as it has always been, identify your needs, identify the functions that the potential solution systems implement, and find the best match. Suite vs. Best of Breed vs. Custom App. vs Yet Another Confusing and Ridiculous Model be damned.

Tompkins Associates and the Next Generation Supply Chain, Part IV

In Monday’s post, we brought your attention to Tompkins Associates’ recent white paper on “Leveraging the Supply Chain for Increased Shareholder Value” which nicely complements CAPS Research and A.T. Kearney’s study on “Value Focussed Supply: Linking Supply to Competitive Business Strategies” and echos our cry for Next Generation Sourcing methodologies. A cry which has been taken up not only by The MPower Group (and spearheaded by Dalip Raheja who has declared that Strategic Sourcing is Dead and invited you to the The Wake for Strategic Sourcing) but by BravoSolution (who are rallying the battle cry for High Definition Sourcing and who have given us A Futuristic Look at High Definition Sourcing). We told you how they declared the need for a new Supply Chain Value Creation Framework and a renewed focus on business value in the supply chain, outlined three supply chain objectives — Profitable Growth, Margin Improvement, and Capital Efficiency, and described six primary types of value enabling actions to achieve the objectives before telling you that we would spend the next four posts discussing some of these actions and why Tompkins Associates’ white paper on “Leveraging the Supply Chain for Increased Shareholder Value” should definitely be on your reading list as you outline your Next Generation Sourcing strategy.

So, today, we are going to discuss the objective of Capital Efficiency.

Capital efficiency is a measure used to determine whether a particular product, service, or operation is profitable, could be profitable with some adjustments, or should be abandoned entirely. The basic measure is computed by dividing the average value of output by the rate of expeniture for a period of time. A good capital efficiency is greater than one.

There are two primary ways for a company to increase capital efficiency. It can reduce working capital or improve the return on its fixed assets.

The most effective way to reduce working capital for many companies is to improve inventory management as significant amounts of working capital are typically tied up in inventory for an average company. The most effective reduction will be realizied when both cycle stock and saety stock is optimized. The white paper on “Leveraging the Supply Chain for Increased Shareholder Value” outlines four techniques that can be used to minimize cycle stock and four techniques that can be used to minimize safety stock.

With respect to improving return on fixed assets, a supply chain has four options. It can focus on the network assets, the building assets, the equipment assets, or the technology assets.

Technology assets need to be upgraded regularly or the cost to maintain the systems will increase as the risk of obsolescence skyrockets. Thus, a return on technology assets can be obtained by upgrading to a new system with addtional value before the technology becomes obsolete and the upgrade prohibitively expensive. (To determine how much the upgrade is going to cost, use the Cost Model Calculations in the SI Enterprise Software Buying Guide.)

Equipment needs to be maintained as no value can be obtained when it is not functional, and if it breaks down to the point of no repair, all value is lost. Thus, value is maintained when equipment is maintained. However, value can only be increased by upgrading to new, more efficient equipment that is easier to maintain, repair, upgrade, and control through modern control systems.

Building assets offer a fairy large opportunity for return on assets. If a building is appropriately designed for a function and has the right height, layout, and column spacing, no space will be lost, operations will be efficient, and, if LEED standards were followed, it will be energy efficient, cheap to maintain, and sustainable. Any building that is not used 100% does not deliver an optimal return. If a building is only partially used, a greater return can be obtained by leasing the unused space, or, if usage is sparse, disposing of the building and acquiring, or leasing, a more appropriate space.

Finally, the network offers the greatest opportunity for a large return on assets as an appropriate network realignment often removes 5% to 15% from total supply chain cost. A well designed network has low transportation costs, high agility, and (geographically dispersed) robustness and can withstand a disruption in part of the network. A good network is optimized, using the techniques outlined in SI’s three-part series on Supply Chain Network Optimization (Part I, Part II, and Part III), and stress-tested against multiple scenarios using a simulation tool.

All-in-all, a company has multiple options for increasing capital efficiency, just as it has multiple options to improve margins and achieve profitable growth. That’s why its important for a company to adopt a value-focussed mindset, implement next generation sourcing and supply chain practices, and chase the value that is just waiting to be extracted from the supply chain. And that’s also why it’s important to add papers like Tompkins Associates’ “Leveraging the Supply Chain for Increased Shareholder Value” to your working library as there aren’t that many resources out there that describe what a supply chain needs to do to get to the next level.