<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Expoliting the current purchasing talent pool surplus</title>
	<atom:link href="http://purchasingtransformation.ibxeurope.com/2009/11/24/expoliting-the-current-purchasing-talent-pool-surplus/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://purchasingtransformation.ibxeurope.com/2009/11/24/expoliting-the-current-purchasing-talent-pool-surplus/</link>
	<description>Challenges and possibilities within sourcing, procurement and supply chain management.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Mar 2010 06:47:30 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Per Wendelboe Nielsen, Agresso Business Consulting</title>
		<link>http://purchasingtransformation.ibxeurope.com/2009/11/24/expoliting-the-current-purchasing-talent-pool-surplus/#comment-711</link>
		<dc:creator>Per Wendelboe Nielsen, Agresso Business Consulting</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 27 Nov 2009 07:21:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://purchasingtransformation.ibxeurope.com/?p=798#comment-711</guid>
		<description>I completely agree on your proposed plan of action but I think the original article raises so many questions that it really should be deemed lacking, at best.

First of all, there is no mention of what constitutes over-qualified (or qualified for that matter) and I cannot see how you can comment on the market situation without defining the market - it is not selfevident when it comes to procurement.

I also have trouble understanding why a &#039;flood&#039; is a bad thing? Wouldn&#039;t the opposite be far worse? Procurement functions are under pressure to cut internal costs as well and this is if anything ver favourable to that end.

Lastly, is this all that different from sourcing? The right supplier for the right product or service at the right price? Structured and systematic approach needed? I think the procurement function is well equipped for navigating a big talent pool - it is not too far off of their core business.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I completely agree on your proposed plan of action but I think the original article raises so many questions that it really should be deemed lacking, at best.</p>
<p>First of all, there is no mention of what constitutes over-qualified (or qualified for that matter) and I cannot see how you can comment on the market situation without defining the market &#8211; it is not selfevident when it comes to procurement.</p>
<p>I also have trouble understanding why a &#8216;flood&#8217; is a bad thing? Wouldn&#8217;t the opposite be far worse? Procurement functions are under pressure to cut internal costs as well and this is if anything ver favourable to that end.</p>
<p>Lastly, is this all that different from sourcing? The right supplier for the right product or service at the right price? Structured and systematic approach needed? I think the procurement function is well equipped for navigating a big talent pool &#8211; it is not too far off of their core business.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
