Archive for the ‘Supplier Management’ Category

Is procurement to blame for corruption business practices in low cost countries?

March 30, 2010

The Rio Tinto bribes-for-secrets case has become a landmark for corruption and risk management; exposing business practices many of us consider highly unethical.

Commenting the story for CNN (Wake-up call for foreign firms in China);  risk management consultant Peter Humphrey points out several lessons that can be learned from the case:

  • First, corrupt practices must be strictly monitored and curbed in order to avoid trouble both with Chinese law and home-country anti-bribery law.
  • Second, companies clearly need to gather business intelligence and competitor intelligence but they must do so through legal and ethical means and not through bribes.
  • A closely-related lesson for multinationals is what we have learned about the interests that China considers “strategic”.

Now, we’re all aware that corruption is wide-spread in China (as it unfortunately is in many parts of the developing world) the question is how we should deal with the fact. SIDA – the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency recently announced that they are funding a center for CSR-issues in Beijing (in Swedish) but although training and cooperation centers such as this are one way of instigating change one wonders if it is enough. My belief is that CSR-practices must become the focal point for low cost country sourcing because unless procurement as buyers do not stand up for ethical procedures one cannot expect developing country suppliers to live up to western European cultural  ideals in a cut throat business environment.

When collaboration becomes essential for success

November 6, 2009

Jason Busch recently posted a note worthy piece on collaboration (Supplier Collaboration – How Sweet It Is) where he recounted how Hershey Foods and Kmart had developed and executed very successful programs for the Kmart chain.

I was further reminded on how these types of relationships work at lunch yesterday when I ran into an old friend and he mentioned that he was waiting for the response from one of his customers to whom he had delivered material earlier that week. My friend is a songwriter and he’s is contracted as a supplier to one of the major record labels. It’s a buyer/supplier relationship built purely on trust (and past performance).

Now I understand that this might seem a bit farfetched for some, but remember that the recording industry is an 18 billion dollar industry that has experienced a nearly 15% drop in sales annually over the past few years. It’s a business that more and more has become dependent on external suppliers to deliver songs, the changes to the industry that were caused by The Beatles in the sixties have become obsolete and they are more and more resembling the industry demography of the fifties with freelancing songwriters providing songs to labels. But in order for this to work:

  • The buyer needs to trust the songwriter to be able to deliver what they (and their artists) need in order to become more successful.
  • The suppliers need to build a relationship that enabled them to deeply understand what both the record label and the artist was looking for. And unless this is delivered, there is no money coming in. So the depth of the relationship and common understanding is essential.

Now this type of supplier relationship might only be fruitful for a few select categories, but I believe that if we are to be able to exploit the potential for innovation in the supply chain – relationships like this will surely be integral in attaining that goal.

As for my friend in the example mentioned above, I don’t know the outcome yet, but if my friend has understood exactly what the stakeholders were looking for his material will end up on the next Kylie Minogue album.

Asking the right questions – how to find weaknesses in your supply chain operations

November 3, 2009

Despite some of the headlines (true or not) regarding the practices of IBM’s executive management, there are still some interestion material emerging from the big blue.

In IBM Global Business Service’s recent ”Sourcing in a demanding economic environment” white paper the men in blue offer up a wide range of tactics and ideas for how purchasing departments can excel in even a harsh business climate. Though not much is new, and I personally would have emphasized exactly which skills are core when interacting with other parts of the business and taking on a leadership role in the value creation process, the authors have managed to collect a very comprehensive set of questions that purchasing managers should ask themselves when considering how to go forward with key purchasing challenges.

  • Supply base: Who are the right suppliers?
  • Commodities: What are the strengths and weaknesses in commodity coverage across growth countries?
  • TCO: How can I help ensure sustainable TCO savings? How do I build a reliable business case and estimate risks?
  • Quality and skills: How can I maintain quality levels? How do I attract and retain top-quality staff?
  • Supply chain integration: How can I most effectively manage an extended supply chain? How can I help ensure competitive lead times and flexibility?
  • Contracts and legal: What contractual and licensing issues should I be aware of? What are the import and export regulation requirements?
  • Taxation: What are the benefits or pitfalls regarding local taxation? Should I buy in local or foreign currency?
  • Language and local culture: How can I manage the local language and cultural challenges? How can I protect mu intellectual property and prevent fraud?

Though most of these questions may seem basic to more advanced purchasing professionals, I’d suggest you go through them in your next purchasing council (or board). Chance are that you will unveil unknown weaknesses in your supply chain that can be bettered.

Sustainable supply indexing 101

August 20, 2009

Even those with keen interest in sustainable supply chain measures and green procurement might have missed how Walmart quietly released their new Sustainable Product Index earlier this summer. Now, this index is still in its early stages – which is also highlighted by Walmart CEO Mike Duke in his presentation (available here) – still it’s a great primer for companies, especially retailers, looking into sustainable supply chain practices.

To build the index, Walmart offer suppliers to self assess their sustainability practices by asking questions around four areas:

  1. Energy and Climate
  2. Material Efficiency
  3. Natural Resources
  4. People and Community 

The questions are not complex, yet they provide a great starting point for companies striving towards a systematic approach to sustainable supply chain practices.

The 15 questions are available online here: http://walmartstores.com/download/3863.pdf

Unbloating IM&S catalogs

August 17, 2009

Bloated gadgets aside, this recent Economist column entitled “When Less Is More” got me thinking in more than one direction.

Especially the poignant and precise quote from Antoine de Saint Exupéry which sums up the argument: “Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add, but when there is nothing left to take away.”

In my mind this is something that all purchasers in the indirect area should take to their hearts. It perfectly sums up why there is no need for unmanaged 5 million SKU catalogs that need to be browsed using a 25 000 node UNSPSC tree and – ultimately – forces the end user to become a maverick.

Next time you’re looking over your indirect contracts – don’t try to find stuff that is missing, try to weed away the stuff that (nearly) no one is buying.

Public sector IT-procurement gone wild

April 8, 2009

No one in Sweden can have missed the headlines caused by the Swedish Social Security Agency and their recent IT disaster. As the project deteriorated, causing one headline after the other, the project was forced to be audited by the Swedish National Audit Office whose final report was released on April 6th (More here – in Swedish).

The report is a showcase of what might (and dare I say, often will) go wrong when the power balance between stakeholder, supplier and purchasing is off.

The Audit office has examined four of the Social Security Agencies recent IT-purchases (all quite large and vital to not only the agency as such but to all of their customers, i.e. the population of Sweden) and not only have the Social Security Agency bypassed all regulations regarding government contracts but the audit also found major faults in the purchasing processes as such:

  • Low RFP quality, complex yet lacking in specifications
  • Too little time give to suppliers in order for them to be able to answer the RFPs in a proper manner

This has led to suppliers declining in participation in the sourcing event.

The audit also found that the purchasing function at the Social Security Agency lacked resources and time to prepare the sourcing event of this magnitude which in turn led to poor quality analysis and reporting regarding which supplier was awarded the contract and why.

Last and not least, the audit found that the power balance between the stakeholder (the IT department) and the purchasing function was so asymmetrical that it could hardly be called a power balance at all. In two of the four projects purchasing chose to bypass all sourcing activity and just call-off consultants on hourly rates on their current frame agreements leading to cost escalation and practically no cost control what so ever. In Computer Sweden auditor Karin Lindell goes as far as saying: There was a WAR between purchasing and IT

Due to the fact that so few suppliers participated in the sourcing process, suppliers had their ways and in many cases dictated the terms; for instance one supplier was paid three months in advance(!!!!) and contracts were mostly drawn up to make the Social Security Agency responsible for any delays.

As one digs into the details regarding the different projects it gets really scary. For one SAP project (Customer Self Service) two suppliers submitted bids:

IBM – who bid 84 million SEK – and Logica – who offered a price interval of 25 to 46 million SEK (and someone should have pumped the breaks at that very moment).  Logica was awarded the contract with the motivation that they had submitted a bid which was substantially lower that IBM and the project was due to be delivered in March 2008.

As of today, the project has not yet been delivered and Logica has invoiced the Social Security Agency 77 million SEK and other suppliers have invoiced the agency 63 million SEK.

That puts the tab at 110 million SEK and running, public procurement has surely seen better days.

Vertical integration revisited

March 30, 2009

This weekend The Economist published a piece entitled Moving on up where they (partially at least) championed a return to Henry Fords vertically integrated supply chain model. Concluding, they offer, that though there are risks involved (in either approach), “Recalling the days when Henry Ford ruled, vertical integration—in adapted form at least—may emerge from disgrace as an innovative solution in an era when innovation is sorely required.”

One company that recently has started to revisit a more vertically integrated supply chain is Sandvik – one of Sweden’s leading high technology groups, represented in 130 countries world wide with market leadership in stainless and high-alloy steels and special metals. In mid-February Sandvik acquired Wolfram Bergbau- und Hütten-GmbH Nfg. KG (WBH), an Austrian producer and supplier of tungsten products. In the press release that announced the acquisition Anders Thelin, President of Sandvik Tooling is quoted saying:

“It [WBH] provides us with resources to manage the entire production process, from ore to finished cemented carbide powder. In this way we will be able to further strengthen our raw material supply and develop our business and customer offering.”

Given the volatility of the current commodity markets, carefully choosing your supply chain integration strategies is becoming more and more important.

Service spend: IT consultants expect a 10 percent price cut

February 19, 2009

According to a report (in Swedish) published today by Arbetsförmedlingen – the Swedish Public Employment Service, the official government office for employment – jobs in the IT sector is expected to rise by 1,2 percent in 2009, the only sector to show positive numbers (manufacturing being the big loser, backing an estimated 3,8 percent).

So what does this tell us about IT service spend.

Bloggers and analysts  alike are busy debating; and the general consensus is that it is indeed a buyers market, but many raise a finger of warning as companies are balancing the need for external consultants against the need for cutting costs.

In a recent interview with Dagens Nyheter; Cybercom CEO Patrik Boman is quoted:

- We will see a continued price fall reaching nearly 10 percent. And I believe many IT consultancies will have to adapt to a new level of revenues in the near future.

Straight shooting from one of the suppliers; purchasers take note.

Yet demand for specialists will always play a big part in the success or failure of any business; and the size of the talent pool will in the end determine the cost of specialist services. So purchasing (and the buyers) needs to be able to differentiate bad spend from good spend; and then use the overall market trends as leverage to ensure potential savings. And don’t forget that even IT consultancy services can be sourced globally.

Trust matters

October 13, 2008

In these times of turmoil; many cite the lack of trust as one of the key factors in the appearant crash of the financial markets. It goes without saying; the foundation of any business agreement needs to be based on trust; or at least a common understanding; between the different parties.

And this needs to be remembered in the world of purchasing as well. Ponder the following scenario:

Company A is sourcing for suppliers for a certain product. The contract is awarded to Supplier C, and the price is based on a number of different parameters such as volume etc. Yet Company A is experiencing a 50 percent rate of maverick buying for the contracted category (and this is not a very unusual number for many IM&S categories). A well informed supplier knows this; and they will exploit this fact; as a buyer you are not going to get the best possible price because the supplier does not trust you to deliver on your promise (i.e. the predicted volume).

This is where the trust-based e-procurment pitch comes in handy; many purchasing functions experience supplier resistance to e-procurement implementation – and suppliers do this more on instinct than anything else – due to the fact that suppliers rarely see an upside to the initiative; suppliers are still used to being promised one thing and then experiencing something completely different.

When selling e-procurement to suppliers, the purchasing organization needs to stress that they are doing this in order to ensure that suppliers get what they were promised in the negotiations. Once this value is delivered and real trust is restored in the relationship purchasing functions should start to see improved results in their sourcing efforts by becoming a valued buyer/partner; one that delivers on their part of the bargain.

When to convert strategic items into competitive bidding

September 26, 2008

The business case of converting strategic items into competitive bidding needs to be thoroughly examined over a long period of time; especially when looking if the decision makes sense from a commercial perspective since decisions like this are often extremely strategic.

Fellow blogger Christer Hallqvist described this (stretched, in his words) example in the sourcing chapter of IBX book Purchasing Transformation.

One example relating to the matter of buying level comes from Saab and the purchasing challenges they faced when developing and introducing the Trionic engine management system in the early 1990s.

At the time, Saab relied on a first-tier supplier that was commercially much larger than Saab itself. Due to Saab’s diminutive size in the automotive industry, the company was in no position to influence the supplier in meeting Saab’s advanced demands for the engine management system. Yet Saab was so convinced of the power of its concept that it re-evaluated the supplier relationship.

Saab decided to develop the engine management system in-house to bridge the gap for the future, and the Trionic engine management system was born. In essence, the decision meant to substitute the first-tier supplier with Saab’s own development and use the previous first-tier supplier as a second-tier supplier, among others, for engine management components to the system. By changing the buying level to the second tier, the company increased the supplier competition and made it possible to source them by applying a competitive bidding approach.

The result of this buying level switch is that Saab is still – almost 15 years on – uniquely positioned to utilize its own technology to outperform competition in the increasing segment of alternative fuel engines. First launched in 1994 as Saab Trionic 5, Saab are now building cars using Saab Trionic 8 – dubbed Saab Biopower it’s the worlds first turbocharged bioethanol engine. Running on E85, the engine output increased by nearly 20 percent, with torque rising almost 15 percent to 280 Nm. 

The Trionic engine management system and the turbo technology takes advantage of the fact that bioethanol has a higher octane-rating than regular petrol. Saab claims it’s a win win situation; it’s environmentally- as well as driver friendly.  

One could add that it’s strategic sourcing at its finest.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.