When considering global supply chains, it's not new news that they are notoriously complex and opaque. Among other challenges, this means that issues such as child and forced labor, deforestation and environmental degradation can remain in the shadows. Identifying the source of these problems becomes so complex that tackling their root causes and seeking remediation for affected communities becomes a near-impossible endeavor.
Supplier normalization can also be referred to as standardization. Normalization is giving your existing suppliers a common name or grouping so that you can see how much you are truly spending with them or selling to them.
Sounds silly though, right?
Surely companies must know how much they are spending, selling or using with their suppliers already? You might think that, but there are a number of reasons that you might find multiple versions of the same supplier in a database.
The semiconductor industry has an atypical problem: everybody wants their product. Semiconductor chips are the basic component of the digital products used in our everyday lives, from mobile phones to televisions to washing machines, but it doesn’t end with consumer products. As many as 169 industries have been impacted by the current mismatch in demand and supply.
Suppliers are mission-critical partners for business success. Unfortunately, too often, an “arm’s length” relationship creates problems that are revealed only after it’s too late.
When suppliers feel conversations only occur after poor performances, the opportunity to have a productive, collaborative conversation may already be over.
The worldwide crisis made us hyper-aware that trust-worthy relationships are vital. Effective third-party risk management is the best way to gain assurance that responses and decisions are risk-informed. Managing third-party relationships, calibrated for criticality and risks, has never been more critical. This is the most reliable path to strengthen business resilience, protect stakeholders and the bottom line.
2020 brought us a time of reflection on many fronts, from how we eat to how we prioritize, how we think, how we get from point A to point B, to focusing on what matters. Diversity is one of the elements that came to the forefront in 2020 for many people and organizations.
As an immigrant and a minority woman, I never thought that we would be at this place in my lifetime where an open discussion of diversity occurs because I have seen how much of it was shunned systematically in the past.
During the COVID-19 pandemic, companies have had to navigate unprecedented supply and demand chain challenges. In fact, industries were seeing increasing instability in this area prior to the pandemic’s onset.
Large-scale disruptions such as the COVID-19 pandemic cause huge supply/demand imbalances due to interruptions in supply or surges in demand. In an unstable environment, companies often have to prioritize which customers they serve.
Past disruptions reveal how companies on both ends of the supply chain have handled such challenges, both in terms of tactics they employed and considerations they used for their decisions.
When the COVID crisis hit, organizations had no choice but to respond to the challenges they faced by leveraging the resources they and their suppliers had at their disposal. Clearly, some were better prepared and responded with more resilience than others. Now we are many months into the crisis, and it's time to look at what went wrong and what organizations should change going forward.
2020 has been quite a year for global businesses and especially for supply chains.
Just in the first six months of the year, the world has already witnessed some defining moments. Looming trade wars between the U.S. and China, preparations for the post-Brexit economy in the Euro zone, and an increasing focus on sustainability and environmental consciousness are all ongoing.
Though one can argue that none of these moments took the world by surprise, they did push global supply chains to review and re-engineer their operating models.
We know that procurement is often a juggling act! We use decent supplier relationships, purchasing power, and any other tools in our belt to secure best payment terms, highest quality purchases at the lowest price, or indeed best value, to ensure vital continuity of supply against a backdrop of supply chains becoming ever more complex and volatile!
One of the most significant procurement trends we’ve seen so far in 2020 is delivering value beyond savings. So what exactly does this mean in the context of the function’s traditional goals?
Savings, as we all know, have long formed the foundation of procurement’s ROI to the organization. It’s been our primary charter over the years and is quite literally how the function has “paid its bills.”
Legislation regarding the environment, modern slavery and other sustainable procurement laws are coming into force at a breakneck pace. By embracing change now and adopting ethical and sustainable procurement, organizations can get ahead of the curve. Also, this socially responsible commerce movement is being thrust into the forefront of how business will operate moving forward, given the guidelines for the recent stimulus bill passed in the U.S.
Libby Weber - Associate Professor of Strategy at The Paul Merage School of Business, University of California, Irvine - promotes a way of thinking about contracts beyond their traditional “preventive” role of avoiding risk, preventing breaches or opportunistic behavior.
Her premise? Why not use contracts to promote cooperation, flexibility, and creativity?
Procurement is old. Just how old you ask? Well,
a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away… it’s been around for millennia. As a natural function of trade and commerce, it developed organically during the earliest civilizations. Papyrus records indicate procurement can be traced as far back as the Egyptians (the first Jedi) in 3000 B.C.