The Procurement Game Show Series: (1) Make the Connection and The Dating Game

Make the Connection was a game show in the earlier era of TV. A panel of four celebrities tried to determine the sometimes illusive connection between two or more contestants. What linked them together? Often the relationship was difficult to ascertain, as on the surface there were potentially thousands of combinations and permutations to guess from.

Similarly procurement professionals are often faced with the daunting task of sifting through literally thousands of suppliers who wish to obtain business from their corporation. Which vendors will provide the best options? Are you able to clearly define a link between their products and services and your needs? Is the connection which they are indicating to you of true value or is it somewhat misleading?

After much review and associations of linking your corporation to a few of the supplier contestants, further exploration of a potential relationship begins. There may be several vendors who have a similar product or service, but variations exist and thus exploring a potential alliance begins.

When determining the viability of doing business, many questions are asked, compatibility is determined and there is a desire to discover how much of what someone is saying is in effect real and how much of it is "vapor-ware". Similarly on the 60's show The Dating Game bachelors/bachelorettes were provided the opportunity to question three potential mates, who although significantly different had in common the fact that they were of the opposite sex and thus a viable option. The possible contenders were sequestered behind a screen so that their actual appearance could not affect the decision making process. It was about their personality, not about their outward manifestation. Often you could see the disappointment on the "chooser's" face as their pick, although demonstrating depth of character, did not have the attractiveness of the other possibilities.

When choosing a potential partner for our corporations, we need to be aware that as human beings we are not immune to the "flash" or outward appearances of marketing collateral and of the sales personnel and pitch. When we begin the "dating" ritual, we may be swept away by the appearances and style, as opposed to the depth of offerings and support. We are programmed to be visual beings and as such, because we don't have the business luxury of putting our potential supplier behind a screen (although wouldn't that be an interesting process ) we need to be aware that the "nerdy" guy with the gap-toothed smile, might be a better partner in the long-run. The beautiful leggy model or the GQ -looking man may have little behind their appearance to offer. Behind the veneer there may only exist a vacuum, hence the saying "all style, no substance."

Many who read this will believe that they cannot be affected in this manner, however psychology is against you in this -- as our subjective consciousness, very often overrides our objective one. It is one of the reasons that to minimize the "attractiveness" affect it is important to have a procurement process which levels the playing field. Using an electronic RFP process is effective in achieving this goal and ensuring that all suppliers are treated equally -- no extra meetings, inquiries etc., by one vs. the other -- no golf games, dinners etc. By engaging in this so-called "relationship" building you are allowing a "contestant" to tip you in the direction of the subjective. Have several parties participate in the evaluation. In this way, if one individual is more subjective, the effect is neutralized by the others present.

So first, Make the Connection and then play The Dating Game, but be careful that you are not just imaging a link so that you can spend time with the supplier who has surface attractiveness.

Remember "you can't judge a book by its cover", both in life and in business

Deal or No Deal, Let's Make a Deal and other Game Shows

While watching an recent commercial for the new game show phenomenon, Deal or No Deal, I was struck by the fact that so many of the game shows from both today and yesteryear have significant elements of the buy and sell relationship as their premise.

With that in mind, I will begin a series of entries to this blog, which will focus on how game shows mimic aspects of what is faced every day in procurement and supply chain.

Have you ever heard a supplier say "Let's Make a Deal?" When a sales rep tries to indicate that there is a time limit to the offering - isn't it like playing "Beat the Clock." What about the "Price is Right", "I've Got A Secret", "Press Your Luck", "Truth or Consequences", ,"Dog Eat Dog" and let's not forget "The Weakest Link!"

All of these game shows and others with their very clear relationship to the procurement and supply chain will be addressed in weeks to come. So stay tuned, we now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

The Boy Who Cried Wolf -- Disaster Planning and the Supply Chain

We all remember the fable of a shepherd boy who tended a flock of sheep near a village and devised a plan to provide some amusement to his stultifying boredom. Several times he brought out the villagers by crying "Wolf! Wolf! and when the town's people came to help him, he laughed at them because they had fallen for his ruse.

The Wolf however did come at last. The shepherd boy ran again to the village, but when he cried "Wolf!" this time, his neighbors did not heed his cries or offer any assistance as they believed that the boy was, again, just "having them on". The Wolf obliterated the flock at leisure.

The moral of this story is that no one believes a liar, even when telling the truth. Yet I believe when considering Disaster Planning for the Supply Chain, this story has a different moral -- When constantly barraged with news coverage of a real or threatened catastrophe, we have become desensitized and an immunity develops that creates its own threat -- that of indifference and that could prove disastrous for business operations and the Supply Chain.

In the last several years we have witnessed the scourges of 9/11, Hurricane Katrina, and SARS, to name a few. Now there is talk of a pandemic and how, theoretically, it could impact both our personal and business lives.

There is a great deal of chatter about having contingency planning in place for any and all such disasters, yet as soon as the immediate threat has passed by, the priority for action sinks as other critical business issues take precedence.

Some corporations surely have full scale disaster plans, but how many of them have been tested in a mock scenario? Most businesses, however, have done minimal, if any planning towards an interruption in supply chain, perhaps believing that it will never affect them, or that they would be able to react in a crisis. They forget that hope is not a strategy!

There is also a tendency to focus on "The Big One", while the reality is there are many minor threats that could result in an interruption of business. The pundits who subscribe to the world coming to an end and the predictions of Nostradamus are being played out. may be missing more common hazards to business continuity

Have you planned on strikes by any of your suppliers? Are you protected against a sole supplier going bankrupt? What about a disruption in the border crossings, a train derailment etc.? What about blackouts? When the most of the North East of Canada and the US went dark -- how many companies were left scrambling?

Crisis management should not be left until a crisis occurs. There should be available a continually updated business continuity plan, that should be both general and specific at the same time. There will always be disasters that occur that could never have been predicted (such as 9/11) and any disaster planning can never capture all eventualities.

Yet by focusing on both the small scale and large scale contingency planning, a discipline will be set that will provide an agreed to process. The process needs to be tested to determine its viability -- engage in a trial run.

Also, once developed, it cannot gather dust on a shelf, as so many of them do. The plan needs to be dynamic, to allow for change in personnel, business activity, suppliers, customers, locations. To review it any less than once a quarter is, in and of itself, a recipe for disaster.

Make sure that when an unexpected catastrophe occurs, either large or small, that your business is prepared. Otherwise, your clients and suppliers will be reverting to their business continuity plans which they had available in the event that your firm goes bankrupt!