Category Archives: Technology

3-D Printing Will Bring Changes to Direct Sourcing

But not overnight, at least not for the changes being touted as the future of direct sourcing.

Print a part on demand? Not likely. Not soon.

Print a sample part on demand for evaluation — you could have that tomorrow.

What’s the difference?

First of all, today’s 3-D printers can only work with very specific plastics. Generally speaking, these plastics will not be suitable for the vast majority of parts the organization needs.

Secondly, most 3-D printers cannot mass produce parts fast enough to be useful to an organization that needs the parts in quantity.

Thirdly, the economics of 3-D printing today are not nearly where they need to be for mass production compared to current production techniques.

It will be a while before each of these criteria are met, and until they are, 3-D printing won’t be the future of direct sourcing.

But they do have their uses. Let’s say you are collaborating with a supplier halfway around the world in the design and development of a new part. If it requires regular review of a physical part, and getting that part on a regular basis requires global expedited shipments that cost hundreds of dollars a shipment and take up to a week to arrive, then the organization will be spending thousands of dollars on shipments and losing weeks, if not months, of production time while it waits for a part to arrive.

But with 3-D printing, an almost exact replica of the part, down to at least 2mm, even if it’s a metal part, can be printed locally from the CAD/CAM design files. And this can be done for a few dollars in a few hours. This is a significant contribution to the NPD process. And a considerable change to direct sourcing as life-cycles, and costs, can be considerably compressed and quality improved before the first part is delivered.

This simple change alone is significant, and we don’t need to wait for the future to get results. As long as we go in with an understanding of what those results will be.

UX is More Than a Functional Experience, It’s a Program Experience

This year we’ve attacked the UX in Sourcing and Procurement solutions, and for e-Auctions, e-RFX, Optimization, Spend Analytics, and Procure-to-Pay in particular. This was great, but if you really understand Sourcing and Procurement, you know that it’s more than just a set of (integrated) modules with a great user experience. It’s a plan, a process, and, most importantly, a program.

Those organizations that are reasonably advanced in their sourcing journey know that the best success often comes from a category management program that starts with category identification and opportunity assessment, proceeds through a sourcing plan, and then the sourcing process, which culminates in a contract, that then flips over to Procurement which issues a purchase order, receives one or more goods receipts and invoices, issues approvals, and, finally payments. This is all part of a program that works against a project plan and one or more category goals.

This project plan also needs to be managed. Hopefully within your S2P suite, but if not, in another tool that, hopefully, integrates with the S2P suite or, in some cases, the organization’s mix of best-of-breed Supply Management applications. But, as one might surprise by now, such a tool must be immensely usable and provide a great user experience if it is to be used.

However, this is easier said than done because simply slapping a great user experience on a traditional project management tool is not going to cut it. This is because the types of programs that revolve around Sourcing, SRM, Analytics, and P2P are considerably different and require functionalities considerably above and beyond a typical project management application. In other words, slapping a category management theme onto a project management or sourcing application won’t make the grade.

This is why the next UX series produced by the doctor will be on Program Management UX, with the P2P posts co-authored by the revolutionary. So keep a watchful eye out for this one — it might help you understand some of the key functionality that should be included in your S2P platform, which many platforms are still missing today.

Per Angusta: End-to-End Cross-Platform Purchasing & Procurement Project Management

When we last discussed Per Angusta last year in our post on Purchasing CRM, they were a relatively new SaaS company focussing on the workflow that ties the entire Supply Management process together.

They were building a SaaS platform to manage sourcing pipelines, track savings for organizational validation, and make Procurement’s impact visible to the organization. And, more importantly, they were building a tool designed to manage the sourcing workflow by integrating (through APIs) with Sourcing, Procurement, and Supplier platforms … out-of-the-box. At the time, they were integrated, or building integrations with, Rosslyn Analytics, HICX, Market Dojo. Today, they are also integrated with Coupa, Dhatim, D&B, and Ecovadis and other integrations are in the way.

Back then, they were mainly workflow, budget management, and great project management. Since then, they’ve added (better) ERP integration; improved alerts with rule definitions that will, in the next release, also support approval management and “toll gates” for better project management capability; added better contract management and tracking support (with forthcoming DocuSign integration); added supplier (information) management capability (that can import data from existing systems); added opportunity identification and management (with some innovative capability for those that also use Dhatim); and added an overall progress management capability … with the ability to take reporting snapshots from any point in time (in the past). In this post we are going to focus on three key advancements: opportunity management, supplier management and the progress management capability.

Opportunity Management was designed as a “scratch-pad” based application that allows a sourcing and procurement team to track potential opportunities as they are identified. To start identifying an opportunity, all that is needed is a name, an opportunity type, and a category. A short description, stakeholder, scope, implementation difficulty, and expected start date can also be defined. Once an opportunity is accepted, a potential budget impact can be defined, and once the opportunity is implemented, the expected savings can be defined and then the actual savings tracked. And all of this is summarized on the dashboard that summarizes opportunities by status, type of impact, ease of implementation, and project duration. But the great thing is that if a customer also has Dhatim, they can use Dhatim’s AI to identify the likely best opportunities that can be attacked and then feed them right into the Per Angusta platform.

Supplier Management, which can take data from the ERP, organizational Sourcing / ERP / Supply Management systems, and third party systems (D&B, Ecovadis, etc.), can be use to provide a basic Supplier snapshot independent of any given Sourcing system that can merge all the relevant data and provide consistent information to all Supply Management personnel. If they integrate a supplier discovery platform, it will be quick and easy to identify the best current and new suppliers to invite to your next Sourcing or Procurement project.

The Progress Management capability is essentially a pair of operational and financial dashboards that summarize target, forecast, and actual results for the year on top of the opportunity management and tracking capability. It’s trivially simple, but when data from all the platforms is integrated, extremely powerful and useful to the Procurement and Finance organizations.

Per Angusta has come a long way in a short time and SI looks forward to see what they do next year, especially as they are now working on “finding ways to use AI to make sourcing and procurement professionals much more productive and effective”.

Ninety Years Ago Today …

The Ford Motor Company taught us how long a product line built to last should last when it unveiled its Ford Model A as its new automobile NINETEEN (19) years into production of the Ford Model T. Can you believe it! What else lasts nineteen years (besides versions of Unix and Linux, but even then support is sometimes only guaranteed for a decade) in today’s economy?

When you look at fast moving industries like fashion, sometimes you are looking at product lifespans of 19 days! And most companies roll out a brand new mobile phone model every twelve to eighteen months and an upgraded model every six to nine months. You cannot get a laptop or computer warranty for more than three years. And you’re supposed to trade up to a new car as soon as the current model is paid off.

But products can, and should, be built to last. Will we ever remember what the Ford Motor Company taught us?

Fujitsu is Launching a Blockchain Money Transfer Service

Which is a step in the right direction, but it’s not enough.

As per a recent article, Fujitsu Eyes Cryptocurrency Trading with Cross-Blockchain Payments Tech. The goal of the platform is to allow two different cryptocurrency networks to interoperate.

Interoperable networks are the future of supply chain, as per a recent article on we need blockchain, but not for the reasons you think, as, implemented properly, it could allow supply chain partners on different platforms to securely, but openly, trade information that multiple partners need access to in an unalterable way.

But that, of course, is easier said than done. Company X might post that it has a 10 Million Renminbi receivable in China that it wants to trade for a 1.5 Million USD receivable in the USA, but even if that is the exact exchange rate, are the two debts equal? Only if both parties can, and will, pay the same amount at the same time. If one debt is due now and one is due in 30 days, there is a cost of capital if one organization has to borrow in the interim to meet cashflow requirements. Also, if both debts are due in 30 days, something could happen within 30 days that would result in one organization being unable to pay its debt for 60 days, and this again could result in a cashflow issue for one party that traded a debt.

As a result, unless both parties pay into a network and the funds can be immediately transferred, then you need a network where parties are trading at negotiated discount rates (subject to credit ratings or other agreed upon factors), and that could get tricky.

We could be left with a situation where each IOU is auctioned off to the highest bidder in one of the counter-party currencies of choice (1.4M USD, 1.0M British Pounds, etc) or the situation where each block is put up with a (set of) offer requirement(s) and the first offer takes it. In the first situation, which requires a fixed time auction over block chain, you have a lot of overhead (and blockchain’s primary application — bitcoin — already takes too much energy), and the second case this could leave trade possibilities on the table.

Unless a truly global currency facilitation fund where a number of entities establish a global bank, each funding in their own currency, and agree to pay out debts in the local currency in an established timeline for each IOU placed on the network, the dream could stay that, a dream. But with a global organization, the global organization would do its own risk checks, insure the risk is acceptable, and then take a cut just like supplier networks and payment networks take a cut. It would be like a bank or an invoice factoring network, but could offer lower costs as it wouldn’t need to exchange currency all the time, could weather currency storms, minimize global transfer (and global transfer costs), and generally improve global trade efficiencies. Just like the Knight’s Templar did when they effectively established one of the first global banks.

What we’re asking is not an easy network to design, but one we need to be thinking about.