Mixed Messages....

When you hold yourself up to be a paragon of virtue and the crusader for all things right, then you better ensure that you haven't built your pedestal on quicksand.

Eliot Spitzer, the now disgraced former Governor of New York, did just that. He was gleeful when he followed a take no prisoners approach to his mandates as Assistant District Attorney and as Attorney General of New York State. His zealotry was hailed as he seemed to slay the evil dragons of Wall Street and of moral corruption in other arenas.

I always felt with Spitzer that he was much less about setting things right and ensuring on-going morally upright behaviour than he was about his own power. I consider myself to have an extremely high standard of ethics and I usually am a supporter of those who take on those who are morally decrepit. But with Spitzer it was all a little much, and it is now borne out with fact -- it was more about him than setting the world straight.

There is a lesson to be learned here though of the corporate titans, who are constantly focused on driving cost savings within organizations on the backs of the "little people" both internally and externally. As I've noted before, cost savings are the ball and chain that procurement professionals bear, but often the hypocrisy in organizations is so apparent that it makes one want to put on sunshades to block out the blinding glare of falsity.

There are two (and sometimes more) tiers within organizations and there is a large gap between the haves and the have-nots. Executive bonuses still get paid, even though the business profits have tanked; expensive executive retreats at far-away places are common-place while the team at home is scrambling to meet their cost savings targets; codes of conduct prohibiting gifts, golf, trips etc. from suppliers, don't seem to apply to the senior ranks....and as Kurt Vonnegut said...."...and so on".

I was in the corporate senior ranks and I always questioned this paradoxical behaviour. At times, I even called people out on it -- of course that's why I'm not in corporate anymore.

Was I perfect -- no -- no one ever is. But I maintained a higher ethical standard than most and expected that my team did as well. And if someone had a lapse of judgement, it was discussed and rectified, not with moral outrage, but with reasoned discourse that ensured the ramifications were understood and the behaviour wasn't repeated.

I guess Eliot Spitzer didn't realize he wasn't perfect! Of course now the whole world knows the truth!

Statistically Speaking.....

We live in a world where people believe that when someone quotes statistics then it must be true! In fact the only truth in statistical truth lies (oxymoron intended) in what a company, a researcher, a politician, a statistician wants us to believe.

Do you remember the old toothpaste commercials where it said "4 out of 5 dentists recommend XX brand". Surprisingly there are many toothpaste brands that are bringing in a decent profit for conglomerates -- but how could this be. Well the secret is in deconstructing the information and determining what it truly means.

Quite honestly there are a number of questions which the above example should elicit -- a) how many dentists did you ask and are all the results included in this submission, or did you ask 100 or so until you actually found four in a row that supported your premise? b) How was the question asked? Did you say to said dentist "We are from the XX toothpaste company and we were wondering if you recommend our toothpaste to your patients?" -- By asking the question in this manner, you would inevitably find that the dentists would say yes -- because firstly, they don't want to go into a whole dissertation with you as to why they wouldn't be recommending your brand of toothpaste and secondarily -- you haven't asked whether your brand is the only one which is being recommended. The dentist could just be saying to his/her patients "use toothpaste" so again, the data is meaningless.

Recently I taught a course on communication and in the materials which were prepared by a known business school, statistics were incorporated which provided information on what kind of communication types and number an individual in business could expect on a daily basis. There were two iterations on this -- one from 2004 and another from 1999! Yes 1999! I guess communication hasn't changed that much in the ensuing years!

But had I not pointed out this glaring issue (note even 2004 data is highly irrelevant) the class would have sat their, written it down, and taken it as gospel! People are too willing to accept things as indisputable when it is tied up in the shiny package of math and science.

Businesses are continuously using statistics to measure so-called productivity but one must question what behaviour do statistics drive and who is minding the shop of what they are saying.

Procurement is often saddled with the "hair-shirt" of cost-savings and what this does is drive a focus on the short-term (so that someone gets their bonus) as opposed to the long term of viewing the situation holistically and making decisions that inevitably will provide a beneficial total cost dimension in the future, but not immediately. But by proposing such approaches to the long term, you need to accept the fact that you will be called a heretic and potentially burned at the proverbial stake...because our world revolves around quick hits, as opposed to long term strategy.

I watch organizations daily in this hamster wheel existence, driving individuals to distraction who figure that their only way up the corporate ladder is to demonstrate a positive statistical outcome. There are many ways of presenting that number and mostly it will be to the benefit of the individual vs. the whole.

I am a heretic in this regard. I like to focus on the long term strategy of defining a methodical approach that will certainly produce some measurable short term results, but more profitable outlooks for the future -- it is about qualitative and quantitative, with the former being of much more significance than the latter -- but alas, in the search for the almighty statistic too many are pursuing the latter.

Unfortunately sometimes I feel like I am fighting a battle which is doomed, but nevertheless I will continue until such time as I am mortally wounded....and of course, statistically speaking, the chances of that are 1 in a million!

The Simple Life?

When did it become backward to be simplicity? Every day we are faced with the marketing frenzy to get the latest, and greatest...not because it's better because it does more "stuff" and of course we always want to be able to do more! Or do we?

Over the last number of months I've been hearing more and more about the One Laptop per child organization and their development of a $100 laptop. I'm not going to get into the details of this program or computer, but it begs the question of how much that we have sitting in our home and on our computer has many components that we needed to have when we bought it, because it sounded "cool" but realistically we never use it!

Same thing with mobile technology -- we use it for emailing and calling and maybe there are some "heavy users" but most of us listened to the sales pitch and said "yes" to a whole bunch of stuff we don't need.

I remember years ago when I was sitting in a room with engineers from the company I was with and the engineers from the suppliers. There was a desire to get down to a significantly less costly cable set-top box. As I sat there listening to the engineers speak about what the consumer needed on this box it was obvious that the ones who like the toys, shouldn't be making assumptions about the user. In one instance the supplier indicated the ability to lower the cost if some of the buttons were removed from the front of the box. Our engineers said "No...our customers expect the buttons to be there." To which I said "there are buttons on the box now?" You see if my technology doesn't work , I don't go looking to fix it...I just call the support desk!

Needless to say I was viewed as if I had just blasphemed the world of technology and was seen as a dinosaur, who was soon to be extinct.

I'm not saying technology isn't great. I love it. But the question becomes is with new laptops, software etc. being launched daily -- is it really required?

I think all of us should take a step back, forget about the marketing hype and actually ask ourselves (and our corporations) is this something we need and is it truly going to enhance our performance, or do we just want to show off our new toys to our friends?

High Dollar highlights lack of efficiency

The Chicken Littles of the manufacturing industry are running around saying "The Sky is Falling" because of the Canadian dollar being near parity. The question becomes is it the "loonie's" performance or is there a deeper issue for consideration.

The Canadian manufacturing sector and by extension the export business is certainly being "hurt" by the rise of the Canadian currency. Yet in my opinion there are other mitigating issues that are causing the panic and it is being unearthed now due to the dollars trajectory.

Canadian companies have allowed themselves to get sloppy and inefficient because they didn't need to be at the top of their game. It has engendered the dangerous thought process of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", and many questioned the need for continuous (and creative) improvement -- because why bother? The Canadian dollar will always be there to protect us -- "The Good North Loonie Weak and Low!"

Now the screaming has begun and the pandering to the government for bailouts has begun. Yet before the government starts handing out dollars to what can be a very long "bread line", it is important that they first consider looking into the effectiveness of the enterprises that are asking for money.

If an individual becomes unemployed, there is tremendous rigour around the actions and activities that they should take in re-asserting themselves in the workplace. Why doesn't the same type of rigour apply to corporations?

If companies are asking for government money (i.e. my tax dollars) then this should be provided on a short term basis, contingent on an improvement plan which demonstrates how they will become competitive regardless of the state of the currency. From what I've read to date, there is just a desire for the hand-outs -- no strings attached and this could become a recurring visit to the public trough -- so that inefficiencies are rewarded.

The cry for the bail-out smacks of Hem -- a character in the popular book "Who Moved My Cheese", who eventually starves because he keeps on waiting for things to go back to the way they always were -- and has great faith in that occurring. From my perspective, if he can't get out of the box -- let him starve!

If you dance with the Devil....

There is a lot of media coverage these days on the most recent travails of the former Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. The issue of cash payments, potential corruption and intrigue always send the media into high gear and whether true or not the reputations of many are hanging by a thread.

Quite honestly, I've never been a fan of Mr. Mulroney, however I do believe he is a very smart man and he wouldn't engage is something so blatantly obvious that has been alleged. I personally believe that Mr. Mulroney did and has tremendous respect for the office of the Prime Minister and would not have engaged is such corrupt behaviour during his term.

The problem here is when one is hood-winked by individuals such as Karlheinz Schreiber, who probably sold his grandmother sometime ago. Almost all his dealings over the years seem to be cast with murkiness and even his latest allegations against Mulroney seem to be little more than a ploy to fight his extradition to Germany for --what else? --fraud, tax evasion, etc.

Now having said earlier that Mulroney is a smart man, he must have had a synapse break the day he decided to accept cash payments from Mr. Schreiber. As Dr. Phil would say "What were you thinking!" If somebody is giving you cash, then either they are trying to hide something (for example laundering money) or it is done with a wink, wink, nudge, nudge -- as in you don't have to make this part of your taxable income (Mulroney has indicated he declared these payments and paid tax on them).

So inevitably Mulroney will be tried and convicted in the realm of public opinion because of a significant lapse in judgement. And I mean significant. He made the mistake of trusting an untrustworthy individual and for that he must pay. The downfall of many over the years can be traced to that momentary lapse, that ends up haunting the reputation forever.

In the area of Procurement a lapse in judgement can ruin a career, or potentially even ruin a company, because without a good reputation, inevitably you have nothing.

So I ask Mr. Mulroney and any others out there who are thinking of engaging in what may seem like questionable dealings, with questionable individuals....

If you dance with the Devil, do you really expect him not to lead?

Loonie Toons!

As the Canadian dollar, otherwise known as the Loonie) hits new highs everyday, it becomes imperative for both consumers and businesses to begin questioning the costs of items.

Simply put, over the last few weeks, just as a consumer, I've managed to buy "right" and questioned some other ludicrously large differentials.

1. Check what the currency conversion is on credit cards. Prior to buying something in US Dollars, I called both Visa and American Express. Visa's conversion earlier last week was $1.005, while American Express was languishing in the .97 area. So of course I bought the item with my Visa (although let's face it they are also making money on the soaring Loonie).
2. If you've gotten a renewal notice from a US magazine publication, check their website subscription rates, and then question the rate you are being charges. I subscribe to Business Week, and received a renewal notice that said "Best Rate" which stated it would cost me $63.95 CDN to renew for the next year. I checked their website and in US dollars the magazine was significantly cheaper. So I emailed them and asked them their rationale and then requested their best rate in US Dollars. Lo and behold, my cost to subscribe to Business Week for a year is now $ 45.97 US...what a deal!
3. I went to purchase something online which is manufactured in Cambridge. Online you can only buy through their PayPal alliance. So when I put in my order and then was asked for final review....are you ready?.....the conversion rate used by PayPal for Canadian to US Dollars was .94!!! The company stated well this was what PayPal would get from American Express...so that is why there is the difference. If you look at point number 1 above it is apparent that PayPal is also taking some additional profit on the conversion.

It is important for corporations as well to look at their contracts for products and services from US or foreign firms. If not already paying in US dollars, they may have inserted an uplift based on currency conversion and risk. Good negotiators usually put a caveat into the contract that allows renegotiation based on a 5% currency fluctuation. Unfortunately, many negotiators aren't that savvy.

Look through all your contracts and start asking the questions and forcing the issue. Otherwise, you will be helping other firms get rich, while your profits fall.

And forget the old adage -- "good things come to those who wait". As a consumer -- go out there and push the envelope and start asking the questions....retailers do respond to customer demands.....eventually....And don't forget to tell Santa to buy in US dollars.

Negotiate Everything and Anything....

In the November 2007 issue of Consumer Reports there is an article entitled "How to bargain for almost anything". The basic premise of this article is that although most consumers are comfortable with negotiating the price of a house or car, they believe that everything else is more or less must be accepted at the price offered.

In the US and Canada, we tend to buy without considering the fact that there is an option to negotiate, whereas in other cultures there is an expectation that one does. This also transcends into the corporate arena, where often one encounters the attitude from the inevitable end users of a product or service that a quote is the end of the negotiation.

Moreover, there is often a fear associated with further negotiation -- "what if they get offended, then they won't do business with us"!

This is such a ludicrous opinion that you want to give folk a shake and say "wake up -- these suppliers are in the business of getting our business".

People fear a two-letter word "no". It holds many hostage, because they believe they don't know how to comeback to this retort. People feel embarrassed when someone says no, but in reality, in my mind, no just means find another way.

The one thing you don't do in a negotiation is state an ultimatum "if you don't do this I won't buy from you" -- unless of course you are willing to walk, and never re-engage with this particular company. It is better to probe and discover their business drivers, and carefully, but skillfully peel back to onion of their issues and determine what their bottom-line is and see how it maps to yours.

Beyond the business aspects of this, as Consumer Reports points out you can negotiate everyday, for almost everything. I've negotiated down my cable rates, my phone rates, my internet rates, just by asking how important my business was to these companies. I also ask for some type of discount when I purchase clothing -- if I'm a regular customer, I ask how important it is to this store to retain my loyalty.

In regards to loyalty, I have also recently written to the bank which has both my personal and business accounts. I am always disturbed when corporations have special promotions to get "new" clients, but take their current and loyal clients for granted. Seeing a most recent promotion which gave new customers an iPod for switching to this bank, I wrote an email, asking what they were going to do for existing and loyal customers.

After a couple of emails (never accept the first response) I received $200 credited to my bank account. Not bad for a 1/2 hour work.

Pinocchio must be turning Green with Envy!

In the September 24, 2007 issue of Business Week, a column entitled "Telling Little Green Lies" suggests that a recent survey of consumers showed that 56% stated that living in an ecologically irresponsible manner was a societal taboo -- which is why that a staggering 90% of those surveyed said that they had lied to friends a neighbors about living in an environmentally friendly way.

So what about corporations?

If you ask any of their suppliers if they are engaged in eco-friendly process within their corporations, I highly doubt if any would say no. However, when your suppliers say yes, be assured that most have their fingers crossed behind their back and hope that you don't delve further into the issue.

Most corporations have engaged in energy efficiency (turn off the lights), recycling paper, toners and other sundry items. Some may even have telecommuting programs which they will proudly state is part of their program to minimize the carbon footprint.

Don't get me wrong -- these are good things -- but they hardly make you eco-friendly.

Many companies are long on promises and short on commitment. The reality is that you can't turn around years of "bad" environmental behaviour around overnight! A stepped process is required and an understanding that to become environmentally "neutral" can take years.

Even if your company has eliminated many of its own irresponsible practices, you are still buying from companies who may be investigating options and alternatives to their own environmental dilemma. Nobody can turn on a dime -- but what you can request from your suppliers is an audited annual progress report which shows their efforts to minimize their carbon footprint and their plans and targets for future years.

And if you have been anointed as the Green Hornet of your organization -- make sure you are not out there on your own -- create an internal and external advisory group which can act as a think tank for your environmental pursuits.

You should also look at getting buy-in from the corporation to do something symbolic -- like getting rid of bottled water. Let's go back to ice water in pitchers for meetings. This symbolic gesture would get the attention of all levels of the organization, because it would impact them all, behaviourly, but let's not forget, it would actually reduce costs.

So let's stop with trying to pretend we can go from pastel green to evergreen overnight. It is a noble thought, but unachievable.

And let's stop the lies. A current advertisement for a printer from a major corporation states "Using our Printer Helps the Environment". Oh Please! If you believe that I have some swampland for you in Florida (which actually may become an increasingly scarce commodity)

Corporate Social Responsibility -- Statistically Speaking

There is an old adage "Statistics don't lie, people do". In today's competitive landscape of corporations wanting to demonstrate that they are leaders in the realm of corporate social responsibility, there is also a preponderance of "don't ask, don't tell!"

In a September 1 article in the Toronto Star headlined "The Fine Print of Ethical Shopping"
shows us how the world of corporate social responsibility can be massaged to a company's advantage.

In this case, they tell of Starbucks who have supposedly embarked on a Coffee and Farmer Equity (CAFE) program to reward farmers with premium pricing if they adhere to environmental and socially responsible standards. In fact Starbucks proudly states that 53% of its beans are now certified under the program.

But what this article clearly points out is that certification and true corporate social responsibility are a game of statistics.

Most regular consumers would look at that statistic and say "wow, that's great!" and assume that a "certified" supplier would meet most of the standards -- at least 80% or more.

Unfortunately the reality is much different. In fact, according to someone who ran the statistics, only 19% fall into the 80% + category, 12% in the 60%-80% category, and the rest -- more than two thirds fall below 60%, which is not quite the pretty picture Starbucks is trying to paint.

In today's market company's seem to be getting in touch with their inner social responsibility, because it provides potential competitive advantage. Perhaps this is a little cynical, and I'm sure that some corporations and individuals within come organizations are truly committed to making the world a better place.

But let's face it -- the better place for most corporate titans is if they get accolades for enhancing shareholder value. If this requires mouthing the tenets of "I care" then so be it. If we get a more environmentally sound planet out of this, that's not a bad thing -- the fear that all should have is that if corporations aren't encompassing social responsibility for the right reasons, it could become a passing fad -- inherently not sustainable.

I give Starbucks credit for their CAFE program, but why leave out critical information and try to boast that you are better than you are? Why not just say it is a work in progress, and state objectives and report and monitor on progress to the consuming public?

For me, at this juncture, I will truly question anything that is reported by Starbucks in the future and look under the covers to where the real facts lie!

Holy Magnets Batman -- you are supposed to fight evil not be it!

Ah Robin....how naive youth is. Why would anyone ever not think that toys from Mattel could be potential harbingers of injury & death? Oh wait a minute ....that's only happened recently right? Before that you could pretty much be guaranteed that toys from Mattel and Fischer Price would bring smiles to children, not choke them or cause brain damage....my mistake...I've just been focused on the last few weeks.

OK -- here I go again......in regards to China....recently a lot of my attention has been focused on the lack of standards in the manufacturing in China. I even gave China the benefit of the doubt -- and now I have to agree with a comment on my last entry -- that this was a mistake.

So yes, it seems that there is a depth of corruption and pursuit of the almighty profit in China, that transcends human decency. I mean, these are our children that are being put at risk! The following quote from cbc.ca says it all:

"The Chinese official, who asked not to be identified, said the issue with the magnetic toys was known back in March, but neither the U.S. company nor the manufacturers were notified."


Yet I still believe that the major responsibility is with the quality control from the Western corporations that are subcontracting out the work. Of course, Mattel's response is that a subcontractor violated the terms of the agreement by further subcontracting -- and as such somewhat trying to distance themselves from this scandal.

I feel like slapping Mattel upside the head and saying "hello -- anyone in there? "-- this is after all China -- a economy growing by leaps and bounds and not grounded with the same ethical standards that we in the West take for granted. A contractual commitment? Oh well -- who cares -- we'll do it this way instead. And by the way Mattel -- great -- now you are putting in a 3 point check system -- Yippee -- a) why wasn't that there before until this subcontractor had proven their worth; b) why don't you start looking for manufacturers closer to home -- because I'm sure that now with the costs incurred by the recalls and multiple quality checks (not to mention the damage in reputation) -- the profits garnered by offshoring have become a red mark in the income statement.

Let me get back to the contractual issue for a second, and in a future entry I'll delve into this in a little more detail.

In the West, there is an egotistic arrogance, that the rest of the world is just like us. Well, the issues regarding Intellectual Property, Subcontracting, Liability/Indemnification, etc, in the offshore world, quite clearly indicate that this is not the situation. Whether because of jealousy of the West's success that leads developing nations to the attitude "it's our turn now -- so who cares about the rules", or there is only consideration of the short term profit motive, as opposed to the long term relationship, who knows -- but it is there.

Then come to think of it -- isn't a lot of the offshoring of manufacturing by Western corporations based on a short term profit motive, as opposed to the long term relationship with their customer? It does seem so lately, doesn't it?

To get to the Mattel recall site click here.

Sesame Street teaches Science gone Bad!

Sesame Street has started teaching science to youngsters and their parents. Not by choice, mind you, but as a result of a massive recall of lead contaminated toys manufactured in -- where else -- China. Perhaps that's why Elmo still speaks like an infant -- it's all the lead that was used to make him that has caused irreversible brain damage!

I have written previously about China and the dangers in outsourcing manufacturing to this country. Again, not to say there aren't some honourable and viable manufacturers in China, but quite honestly, every week, we are being inundated with another story about lack of quality and ingredients being used in the production cycle that can either harm or kill.

I'm not going to blame China. They are trying to keep up with the unprecedented demand being placed on them by the Western conglomerates, eager to enhance their profit margins by engaging with cheap manufacturing costs in this country. But of course there is the old adage "you get what you pay for!" And in this case, it's substandard and dangerous products, once again.

In the July 30th issue of Business Week there is an article entitled Not Made In China, which talks about the success of companies who are now labeling and marketing products as being China-free. These items are flying off the shelves. And IBM is successfully exploiting the situation with a "cradle to grave" software program which provides insight into every step of the supply chain!

So why aren't more companies doing significant due diligence on quality and manufacturing standards before leaping off the cliff without a parachute? There are a plethora of answers to this question but the most compelling, I believe, rest in the almighty profit motive and of course the bandwagon effect.

The bandwagon effect is defined in Wikipedia as "the observation that people often do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. " Basically it means that it is the adolescent need to fit in and be like everyone else, because, of course, if they are doing it and are part of the "in" crowd, then it must be great.

The corporate titans must enjoy sitting around in the airport lounge talking about their latest exploits in China. If you aren't there you can't join in the conversation, and just like in high school, you slink away, sitting in the corner, watching the "cool kids" having fun.

Well, just like in high school, the "cool kids" often drop out or fail and end up bagging groceries for a living, while the "geek" becomes magnificently successful aka Bill Gates.

Maybe it's time for everyone to sit back and consider what benefit the additional profit is giving their corporation. One of the most respected toy manufacturers, Fischer Price, is not tainted because of the pursuit of the almighty dollar.

Perhaps Dora the Explorer should re-examine her destinations, and stay away from China -- for now.

Over Promising and Under Delivery -- What's wrong with Companies these Days?

I should know better. After years and years of watching sales pitches and seeing the hypnotized look from decision makers in corporations who believe every word that comes out of a supplier"s mouth in pursuit of business and then equally experiencing the issues and problems arising from under (or no) delivery to expectations I should have known!

So what am I rambling about? I recently decided to get myself the Blackberry Curve. I'm not a Blackberry virgin either, because I had one of these devices in my last corporate stint. So I went to the wireless provider's store (who shall remain nameless) and after more than an hour -- which was just the paperwork, I happily trotted off with my device. I had received confirmation from the store that when I get home, it will just take a few minutes to set up and I'll joyfully get vibrated as my mail is continuously being transferred from the great beyond to my little device.

Clap if you believe it was so simple. Well Tinkerbell, let me tell you, after a couple of hours I was ready to find the highest cliff and catapult the device to the bottom -- not because of the device itself...but because of the difficulties in getting the wireless aspects to work at all.

I was given a number by the store to call to assist in this task. When calling (on a Sunday) the recorded message said that wait times could be up to 30 minutes! Eventually, after much less than 30 minutes (do they say 30 minutes just to get people to keep from staying on the line?) I got a fellow from a call center in India, who was very pleasant and seemed to get me up and running.

Of course my euphoria was short lived, when I realized my emails were taking close to 1/2 hour to come onto my device. I called again, listened to the same 30 minute warning, and got another fellow from India, who told me that is what I should expect. Because I was not part of a huge corporation with it's own Blackberry enterprise server....so sad, too bad. Not as advertised right?

As my frustration continued to grow, I decided to call the company that hosts my website and lo and behold, they walked me through a way to ensure that my emails were simultaneously sent to both my wireless device and my Outlook Inbox. Kudos to the support team at Korax who kept my Blackberry from suffering a painful demise.

Whether in corporate or as a consumer, we are constantly faced with promises which can't be delivered on, or purposively left out information, which could allow us to make an informed decision on a make or buy proposition.

Quite honestly, I would become an intensely loyal customer to any company who actually stood for full disclosure. I would even be willing to pay more money, because I consider that ease and lack of frustration is priceless.

So to all the corporations out there -- forget the glitz and provide the truth.

Of course, I should have known better -- and Tinkerbell, I'm not going to clap anymore!

(*note that the above Customer Hall of Shame came from an article on MSN Money April 26, 2007)

Waiting for the Wave

I thought instead of writing a new blog entry at this time I would redirect to an article that I wrote which was just published in CPO Agenda magazine. It is my opinion on the future of procurement outsourcing.

You can access the article by clicking on this link Waiting for the Wave

I'd be interested in the opinions of others regarding procurement outsourcing's future.

"To Boldly Go Where No Buyer has Gone Before"....

Do you ever wonder what Procurement will look like in in another decade or two? Do you ever sit back and imagine the future?

Take a look into the future, which with the rapid advancement of technology is more imminent than further away!

Do you ever feel like you should be dodging and weaving because you know that all around you little information packets are rapidly hurrying to their inevitable destination? It's quite amazing when you think about it.

Now envision a world of the future, when you want to "buy" something in the virtual corporation (because of course bricks and mortar won't exist anymore).

You make a statement to the effect of "Buyer" (or perhaps in the future, just thinking about it will be enough) and from you computer pops a holographic "buyer". You can program what you want this image to look like -- mine personally would be the mirror image of Mel Gibson.

This "buyer" asks you what you are looking to buy. After you make your request, Mel dives back into the portals of the web (somewhat like in the movie Tron), and within seconds comes back with three alternatives. (Mel has also made sure that you have the spending authority and if not, has already assured the approvals).

You can view the image of this product in 3D, right in front of you, and this multi-talented buyer would be spouting off the full scope analysis and providing you with the best alternative from an initial total cost perspective.

You make an interim decision although you are not quite convinced that Mel has "negotiated" the best "deal". So you request that the other party's negotiator meets with you to hash out the details. So out pops a holographic image of Mr. T (your supplier has a real sense of humor).

Within minutes you get to end state and your product is on its way -- within minutes of your first determining a need.

Of course the problem is that with a wonderful holographic image, you may decide that you are going to buy more often, just to get a glimpse of your hologram.

So there is a trigger built into the system that after so many "buyer" requests, Barney the Dinosaur shows up singing

"You've bought too much
It's time to stop

Or the boss will come
and you will be chopped...."

Yes, it will be a bright new world out there.....any other ideas?

Let's hear it for simplicity!

Leonardo da Vinci was once quoted as saying , "Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication". If he were alive these days he would realize how we have strayed from this few point. Perhaps Thor Heyerdahl is correct when he states "Progress is man's ability to complicate simplicity".

Look around you. From cell phones to restaurant menus we are being inundated with too much choice, which complicates an already complicated life!

In a Harvard Business Review Article from 2006 entitled More Isn't Always Better, it shows that there have been studies done that as choices increase, customer satisfaction decreases! Go figure!

Why does a supplier need to give me a 100 pens to chose from? Or do I need technology that does everything but walk the dog?

If you look at this from the supply chain perspective, every new version of a product adds costs . Warehousing, transportation, well you know the drill. Not to mention the marketing material costs, and different packages for only slightly different offerings. Is it good business practice to cannibalize your own products?

Wouldn't it be nice if a supplier came to us and said "You know, I realize that my competitors are going to bring you 15 different options with this product, but our intention is to provide you with what you truly need at the best total cost you can imagine!"

It goes back to the Saturday Night Live skit with John Belushi and Bill Murray -- not matter what anyone came into the restaurant to order it was just Cheeseburger and Pepsi! Now if we could only get corporations to understand the sophistication and benefit to this simplicity!

Now give me a Cheeseburger and Pepsi please!