Sourcing Success in these Turbulent Times Require Long Term Planning and Cost Concessions

In a McKinsey article a few months back on How medium-size enterprises can better manage sources, McKinsey said that small and medium-size enterprises often struggle to find Procurement cost savings. Yet there are ways to do it while still pursing growth and providing a superior customer experience. The article, which concluded with an action plan for procurement cost savings, recommended:

  • establishing CoE teams
  • improving forecasting
  • expanding (the) use of digital procurement tools
  • gaining greater market intelligence
  • establishing a culture of — and process for — continuous cost improvement
  • incorporating supplier-driven product improvements

which, of course, are all great suggestions, and mostly address four of the five reasons that McKinsey give that prevent companies from reining in spending, which included

  • a lack of spending transparency (which would have to be corrected to improve forecasting)
  • talent gaps (which can be minimized with the right tools, market intelligence, and CoE teams)
  • underused digital tools and automation (which is directly addressed by using more of them)
  • exclusion of procurement and supply chain in business decision (which would hopefully be a byproduct of a corporate culture for continuous cost improvement that only happens when procurement and supply chain is not involved higher up)

but the fifth is largely unaddressed — the myopic focus on the short term which McKinsey claims could be addressed by putting more effort into planning and forecasting. But that doesn’t solve the problem.

Better forecasting will allow for longer contracts to be signed for higher volumes, which can lead to long term strategic supplier relationships, and better planning can allow this to happen, but this does not completely address the need for long term planning.

Supply Chains today are not the supply chains of the last ten to twenty years.

  • rare earths are even rarer
  • many critical raw materials are in increasingly limited or short supply
  • transportation can be unpredictable in availability and cost; even though most of the world declared COVID over in mid-2022, China still had mandatory lockdowns, ocean carriers scrapped many of their ships for insurance (and in some cases, post-panamax ships that had never made a single voyage), airlines furloughed too many pilots who found other jobs or just flat out retired, and the long-haul trucking in North America (the UK, and many first-world countries) has been on a steady decline for over a deacde
  • ESG/GHG/Carbon Requirements are escalating around the globe and you need to be in compliance (both in terms of reporting 1/2/3 and ensuring you don’t exceed any caps)
  • human/labour rights are escalating and you have to be able to trace compliance down to the source in some jurisdictions; you need suppliers who insist on the same visibility that you do
  • diversity is important not just to meet arbitrary requirements for government programs or arbitrary internal goals, but to ensure you have the right insight and expertise to solve all types of problems that might arise

And you can’t effectively address any of these problems unless you think long term AND accept that some of the solutions will cost more up front.

  • In mid November, the trading price for Neodymium (a rare-earth that is critical for the creation of strong permanent magnets, which makes it possible to miniaturize many electronic devices, including the [smart]phone you might be reading this on) was over $87,000 USD/mt. In comparison, hot roll steel was around $850 USD/mt. In other words, Neodymium was 100 times more expensive than steel. And while you can still buy steel for about the same price you could 10 years ago (it was around $900 USD/mt), Neodynmium is almost $20,000 more (as it was around $69,000 USD/mt in November 2013). It’s not the only rare earth to increase about 26% in 10 years, with further increases on the horizon. You need to have a strategy to minimize your need (which could include product redesigns that use more sustainable alternatives or recycling strategies that use recovered materials from older phone models). And when it comes to recycled materials, due to a historical lack of recycling efforts, or research into technologies to make recycling efficient and cost effective, recycled materials are almost always more expensive at first. Always. But as adoption increases, plants, technologies, and processes get more efficient, and the cost goes down (while, at the same time, raw material prices for materials in limited supply continue to go up). In other words, if you want to mitigate the ever-increasing costs for rare earths and other materials that are in limited supply, you have to incorporate the use of recycled materials, and maybe even invest in your own plants (and recycle your own phones you buy back because it’s cheaper just to buy them back and extract the rare earths yourself than buy the recycled rare earths from someone else).
  • Global trade is costly and unpredictable. Supply assurance is finally dictating near-sourcing and home-sourcing (which SI has been advocating for almost fifteen years, as inevitable disaster was the logical conclusion of outsourcing everything to China as eventually a pandemic, global spat, natural disaster, or other event would send shockwaves through the world when it severely disrupted the trade routes [because even though the chances of a pandemic, natural disaster on the scale of Krakatoa or the Valdivia earthquake, or another catastrophic event is minimal in any given year, over the course of a century, it becomes very likely]), and that is going to require re-investing in those Mexican factories (that worked just fine, by the way) you shut down twenty years ago, training appropriately skilled workers in low cost North American (or Eastern Europe) locales, and paying a bit more per unit (and even transportation until the carriers rebuild those routes). But in the long term, as global transportation costs continue to rise, and the local-ish resources get much more efficient (using the best technology we have to offer), your costs, and transportation risks, will go down while your competitor costs continue to go up.
  • if you don’t insist, and ensure, up front that your suppliers can report the data you need, how will you get it; chances are those suppliers need help and modern systems, which temporarily increase their operational costs as they install, integrate, and learn the systems; not more than a few cents here and there per unit, but a noticeable blip on the overall costs none-the-less
  • if you want suppliers that monitor their supply chain and insist on no slave/forced/child labour, appropriately treated and well paid labour, and, better yet, a community focus throughout the supply chain (so that the humans who mine the materials, harvest the food stuffs, weave the silk, or otherwise do the foundational work have a reasonable quality of life, health, and safety), you’re going to have to put the effort in to find them and the extra money to support them in their humanitarian efforts; since most of these workers in remote low-cost locales are paid pennies on your dollar, it’s another blip on the total cost to ensure they are paid every penny they deserve, but it’s still a blip; but you can’t afford not to do it if your jurisdiction has laws making you responsible for slave labour that later gets discovered in your supply chain
  • and while diversity shouldn’t cost more, since it’s the same number of employees, the reality is that the supply base embracing it could be a minority, and if these minority suppliers suddenly become in demand, market dynamics may kick in and they may charge a premium that your competitor will pay; but, as new challenges continue to arise, you will need the diversity to solve them; so, another blip in the cost you need to absorb

In other words, you need the long term focus to guarantee success, and you need to understand that, up front, it may cost a bit more. However, done right, your costs will decrease over time while your competitors’ costs skyrocket. So if you truly want success, in any high dollar, strategic, or emerging category, plan for the long term. And you will truly succeed.

14% of Procurement Leaders Have Adequate Talent to Meet Future Needs? Bull Crap!

the doctor has to stop looking at headlines, especially those on surveys of Procurement Leaders. Because there is no way that 14% of companies have adequate talent to meet future Procurement Needs. Why? Because there’s no way that 14% of companies have adequate talent to meet current Procurement Needs. Adding this survey result from Gartner with the recent survey result from Forbes who said that 9% of companies claim to be ready to manage risks posed by AI, and the doctor is starting to wonder who they h3ll they are asking to fill out these surveys … because it’s clear that these people either have no connection to reality, are drowning so deep in despair in their job that the only way they can keep their sanity is to pretend that the future is going to be way better than it is today (even though there’s no way that can be true if the company doesn’t fix the problems it has now because problems in companies multiply faster than European Rabbits in Australia), or are higher than a kite on drugs (as that’s how they deal).

The reality is that just about every company has problems in Procurement around:

  • Tech: they don’t have enough modern Sourcing and Procurement systems, sometimes it’s because they are cheap are not-forward thinking (another problem), other times it’s because they aren’t technologically proficient enough (to even know what they need)
  • Risk: otherwise, there’d be a lot less disruptions (even when pandemics hit as they would be doing more near-sourcing, have backup plans ready to go, etc.)
  • Contracts: ask them where there contracts are, and what they are usually protected from and what they are usually not
  • Logistics: beyond risk, chances are they don’t have the right network for the logistics they need or the right carriers for the network they are forced into
  • Spend Under Management: they aren’t able to do nearly enough projects in a year to address enough significant/strategic/critical spend (either due to lack of talent, tech, turbidness [of spend], etc.)
  • Negotiation: some companies are paying more on contract than the spot market, sometimes this is bad negotiation, sometimes this is lack of insight, but regardless, it’s problematic
  • Forecasting: both actual demand (because you can’t trust Sales & Marketing) and future supply/demand imbalances and prices
  • inventory management: (because JIT sometimes stands for just-in-trouble)
  • Spend Visibility: for every dollar: who, what, when, where, why, and how … they just don’t know
  • etc. etc. etc.

If companies had enough talent today, they wouldn’t have the majority of these problems.

But here’s the thing, even if the mythical company existed that had none of these problems, Procurement is still constantly evolving. The suppliers they need to buy from are constantly evolving. The supply networks from the supplier to the company to their consumers are constantly evolving. Technology is constantly evolving. You don’t even know what’s coming, so you can’t know what skills you need, or if your talent will be ready. (Hint: They won’t. Because, even though we keep telling you, you won’t Train Them! [Even though educated, efficient talent are way more productive, you still cut the training budget first for reasons the doctor can’t fathom!])

In other words, it’s ludicrous for any company in the real world that buys and sells products and services in the real world who is, more than likely, barely treading water today to think they are prepared for tomorrow! (Now, they might be in good shape if they have top talent today, but they still need to keep that talent trained and at the top of their game to have any chance of being ready for tomorrow.)

But one thing this survey exposed is the fundamental problem with surveys — people can overestimate their knowledge or readiness (or score themselves higher than they should because they won’t publicly admit they aren’t doing as well as they could be) and then the analyst firm is stuck publishing the results it collects.  Even if they don’t seem plausible when you dig deep.

Global Sourcing Agencies — Are They The Hidden Evil of the Outsourcing World?

Note the Sourcing Innovation Editorial Disclaimers and note this is a very opinionated rant!  Your mileage will vary!  (And not about any firm in particular.)

We all like to blame the Big X (and the larger Mid-Sized consultancies) for the outsourcing revolution that put the whole world in sh!t when the pandemic started (because they spent three decades convincing every CEO and their favourite corporate lap-dog they would get immediate savings [which was true] by outsourcing everything possible to China, a country that then proceeded to do mandatory city-wide lockdowns for three years every time a single COVID case was confirmed). Not only did sudden unavailability in a single geographic source break many supply chains, but the three decades of unnecessary outsourcing also significantly contributed to GHGs and hastened our trajectory to a global 2C temperature increase as transportation GHG emissions have approximately doubled over the last 30 years (and are now responsible for about 30% of global emissions, especially since just 15 older ships contribute more GHG emissions annually than 50 Million cars).

But it’s not just the Big X and Mid-Sized pushing us towards “low cost countries” on the other side of the world (where they have to help with the introductions, organizational transition management, on-site audits, etc. etc. etc. to pocket 33% of those ephemeral savings as consulting fees), it’s Global Sourcing Agencies that are adopting their fee models, tactics, and strategies to help you find the right “partners” with their “in-country” consultants who can help you on the ground, except at slightly lower costs and with slightly more focussed industry expertise.

And the truth of the situation is that if you can’t produce the products (assemblies, components, parts) you need at home, you need to outsource. But the reality is that, today, you should be outsourcing as close to “home” (where “home” is the market you’re sourcing for, so if you’re a true global multi-national, sourcing near the US for the American market, in/near Europe for the European Market, in/near Australia and New Zealand for the Australasia market, and so on). You’re not sourcing from Russia for Argentina or China for the US. It makes no sense (and, at the end of the day, when you compound the disruption costs on top of the outsourced management and super high logistics costs, costs too many extra cents).

And chances are, now that you are trying to move to a closer to “home” market, you have no clue what suppliers are there, what their real production capabilities are, how well they have served other customers in your industry, how easy they are to work with, what your chances of (eventually) becoming a customer of choice really are, and how much help you can get on the ground if you need it. So you need a Global Sourcing Agency to help you, just like you will often need a Big Consulting Agency to help you with Procurement Transformation. But in this situation, it is many times more critical you choose the right one. If you choose a Global Sourcing Agency that specializes in China manufacturers when you are trying to pull out of China sourcing for your North American Market (and thus need deep insight into the Mexican and Brazilian manufacturing market), you’re not going to get many (if any) good options and end up being convinced that, for worse or for even worse, you need to stay in China.

So where’s all this coming from? What appears to be sponsored business spam. For example, the Business NewsWire and the Big News Network are pushing an unattributed* article titled The Role of Global Sourcing Agencies in Business across any business press release site that will accept it.  In our opinion, it’s a thinly veiled attempt to ensure that, with the current (long overdue) focus on “near-sourcing” (which you should have been doing since the initial rise of Mexican outsourcing half a century ago as a response to the introduction of Maquiladoras in the 1960s), that you stay in China (which is, of course, likely the LAST thing you should do unless you are also selling that product to China or nearby [Austral]Asia).

It’s yet another article making generalized good points about how Global Sourcing Agencies can help in theory, but whether they achieve that in practice depends on whether they have the right people, the right relationships, and the right technology — in the region you need them to be in. (Which, and we can not say this enough, is often NOT China!)

Now, if you are a global firm that sells to EurAsia or Austalasia, please use these firms that specialize in china.  You don’t want to be sourcing from South America or Africa for something you can build in Asia!   And if you want to re-shore from China to South America for your American market, find a firm that specializes in South America.

Just like every Big X has their areas of specialty (see when should you use a Big X), every Global Sourcing Agency has theirs.  Use them wisely.   While the right partner can help you reap long term rewards, the wrong partner will lead you deep into the dark woods of fabled nightmares from which you will never emerge again. (And, just like when you select the wrong Big X, it will be your fault.  If you select a Global Sourcing Agency that specializes in China, they will reasonably expect you want China.  Again, if that’s the case, great.  If not … )

 

* We’re glad the article it’s unattributed. We don’t want to single out any company in particular here. It’s the entire outsourcing business model we’re questioning!  We hope it evolves into a model that helps you outsource to near-source countries!  After all, just like America should not be buying something in China it could make in America to sell in America, America should not be buying something in America to sell in China it can make in China!  Sourcing needs to be re-shored to the nearest available source to minimize transport needs, costs, and delivery times.  Not one focus on whatever country looks to be the cheapest or best in the short term!

‘Tis the season … to bring an end to seasonality! (And JIT!)

Consumer shopping may be seasonal, but supply chains no longer support seasonality. The pandemic finally broke over-stretched supply chains, they haven’t fully recovered, and, as per this recent article over on Capgemini, we are still in a situation where 42% of CPR [Consumer Products and Retail] (also known as CPG, Consumer Purchased Goods) organizations expect stockouts or product shortages, 38% expect late deliveries, and 35% foresee labour shortages.

Marketers might like seasonality, as it makes them absolutely necessary, and sales people might like seasonality, because it gives them a reason to push sales (and possibly close a sale in a given time period), but human seasonality is limited to SAD (seasonal affective disorder). Just because consumers want to buy 5 times as many units of a product in December as they do the rest of the year doesn’t mean that humans in September can make 5 times as many units. If a plant normally runs 8 hours a day, the most a plant can theoretically run is 24 hours a day and the most it can do is triple its output. But that assumes it has enough, trained, seasonal, workforce. That’s not likely. Maybe it can split the skilled workforce in half, force half to take the second shift, and have each regular worker supervise one seasonal worker in an effort to double output. But a seasonal worker is not going to be as efficient as a regular worker, and, in the end, maybe output will increase by two thirds. Not much better than if they could just convince their entire workforce to work 12 hour shifts for the month and increase output by about 40% (you’re not getting the theoretical 50% as the workforce will be tired somewhere beyond the 8 to 10 hour mark).

Furthermore, you not only need to have five times the amount of product produced, you also need it transported to you — from half a world away. Seasonal capacity, especially in the late summer/early fall (to get goods to North America in time for the holiday season), has always been limited and with the scuttling of many cargo ships during the pandemic (including some ships that never made a single voyage) due to lack of cargo (because China shut a [port] city down), seasonal capacity is even less than it was. So how do you get the goods during the season, which is what you have been doing/attempting to do since the 80s thanks to the Big X and Mid-Sized consultancies advising you to switch to just in time (and push the inventory cost onto the manufacturer/supplier)? The short answer is, you roll the bones and hope for the best (because JIT now stands for just in trouble). And that’s not a good answer.

If you have “seasonal” demand because either

  • your business model is selling seasonal items or
  • you allowed marketing and sales to take what should be a product always in demand and make it seasonal

Then you have to start managing your own inventory close to the point of sale/last-mile distribution (if you do a lot of on-line business) and start building it up months in advance, based upon normal (non-OT production) and optimal distribution volumes. Yes, inventory is expensive, but what you don’t get is that

  • you’re paying for it anyway (because the supplier is charging you their overhead)
  • you’re losing a lot of sales, and profit, when you stock out
  • a few months of inventory is not that expensive and it’s only expensive if you overstock and then have to discount/fire sale

In other words, do proper data driven forecasting, ensure marketing and sales manage demand by driving people to the products that you have enough of that optimize your profit, right size your “local” warehouses, pick the cheapest locales for a region (your main warehouse doesn’t have to be in the city or even the primary business park, can be in a tier 3 business park a half hour out – that’s not going to add much to delivery cost), and start integrating core product management functions back into your business. Even if you sell seasonal, eliminating seasonality from your management model will decrease overall cost (no more shipping at peak rates in peak seasons or paying overtime overhead), decrease stock outs, and increase profit. Just do it.

An Absolutely Fabulous Article by Cory Doctorow on the (Gen) AI Bubble …

and how it’s going to pop like every other tech bubble since the first dot com bust!

What Kind of Bubble is AI?
  by Cory Doctorow

Cory doesn’t say it, but he makes it pretty clear that when the bubble pops, like every tech bubble that has come before, there may not be much less to salvage when it does (especially since no one is thinking about what happens when it does pop).

So I’ll clarify:

A lot of people are going to lose a lot of money

(and while stupid investors hyping this bandwagon heading for a cliff probably deserve to lose every penny, all of the pensioners in the pension funds they scammed don’t; so if you run a pension fund, please pull out of ridiculously overvalued Gen AI NOW!)

A lot of people are going to lose their jobs

(and it’s going to be more devastating to the tech sector than the Silicon Valley Bank failure this year combined with the recession forecast that resulted in over 250K IT jobs being slashed in the USA alone)

A lot of hardware is going to suddenly go idle

and smaller cloud providers are going to go under when the big name cloud providers all of a sudden drop their prices to the floor just to keep the revenue coming in (resulting in the monopolies of Amazon, Google, and Microsoft controlling most of the servers outside of China and Russia)

The problem is, as Cory clearly lays out, when you take one step back and look at the ridiculous hype from a business/revenue lens, all of the big, exciting use cases for AI are either

a) low dollar [and low-stakes and fault-tolerant] (helping us cheat on our [home]work or generating stock-art for bottom feeders [who won’t pay an artist and don’t mind ripping off the IP from thousands of artists]) or

b) high-dollar but high-stakes and fault-intolerant (self driving cars, radiological cancer detection, worker screening and hiring, etc.)

and when you consider the data center costs of these super-sized models (as these data centers consume MORE energy than a small town), low-dollar AI applications won’t pay the bills and high-dollar AI applications cost MORE to deploy than to just do it the traditional way with an educated and capable human!

E.g. self-driving cars don’t work (and “Cruise” needs to employ 1.5 times as many supervisors as a taxi service would employ drivers to keep their cars, which still hit and critically injure people, relatively safe)

E.g. radiological cancer detection requires a human expert to spend the usual amount of time in diagnosis before consulting the AI, and then, if the AI doesn’t agree, spend that much time again

Not that we’re not stopping you from jumping on the (Gen-)AI bandwagon or selling that silicon snake oil that Open AI and Microsoft AI are selling. We’re just not joining you on the (Gen-)AI bandwagon as the steering algorithm is defective and it’s heading straight for a very high cliff at a very high speed …

Merry Christmas!