As we enter the silly season, here’s a great idea from Ian Burdon.
I have pretty much stopped looking at my “business” Twitter feed. This isn’t because of general disaffection with social media - I also have a “civilian” Twitter account full of music and authors and beer that I keep a regular eye on. No, it is because of the endless flood of nonsense relating to procurement and e-procurement that tracks across my screen.
I understand why this has happened. There is a marketing mantra that you should issue (x) number of tweets per day or per week, without regard to whether they have any meaningful content. Also blogs and journals need to maintain a steady flow of stories to stay at the forefront of their readers’ minds. The confluence of these and other streams overflows onto the Twitter floodplain and leaves everything soggy and somewhat smelly.
And there is the rest: the incessant self-aggrandisement; the business-as-usual presented as if a disruptive triumph of innovation; and the strings of abstract nouns, opaque in their individual meaning, gibberish when strung together like a charm bracelet, that remove rather than enhance communication.
It’s reckoned that more than 50% of businesses employ between 2 and 5 people to prepare and create procurement dashboards and spend reports. This was revealed just recently as an output to some research performed by Rosslyn Analytics but it will come as no surprise to many procurement professionals. And it’s not just the excessive time and resource that is dedicated to the collation of the numbers that is problematic, the accuracy of these dashboards and reports is often appalling.
Today, a post from Richard Manson from CloudTrade
I recently received an email from a disgruntled supplier, unhappy at the request they had received from a customer asking them to submit their invoice via the ‘leading global e-invoice network’.
Their frame of mind wasn’t a reaction to the physical act of submitting electronic invoices – though they did say they weren’t impressed by the limited submission options available, and were concerned about the impact it would have on their business. Their dismay was that they were being asked to pay for the privilege of sending their own invoices to their customer - and pay far more than it would cost them to use the standard postal service!
One of the key reasons to implement tight controls within purchase to pay is to ensure that people can’t steal. But when I talk to businesses about the need to mitigate against the risk of fraud in finance departments - about how it’s possible for staff to collude with suppliers or to falsify information for personal gain - I hear this response again and again: “But who would do that?”
What they’re actually saying is: “We’re all trustworthy here. I don’t know anyone that would do such a thing.” But regrettably, the truth is a little different. The reality is that there are only two types of people – those that cheat and those that cheat more.
Today, Richard Manson from CloudTrade explains how EDI programmes can be transformed to extend their reach.
EDI is nothing new. In fact it has been around since the 1970’s. So why do most organisations that venture down this route still find it so hard to on-board suppliers? It’s not just the number of suppliers that are able and willing to adopt EDI, but also the time it takes to get suppliers on-board.
To get an insight into the issues, let’s first step through the typical supplier adoption process.
I have a great deal of respect for Gartner and pay close attention to their insights and futurology. Despite that, I get a great sense of satisfaction on the occasions when I see what’s what before them.
It’s not news to me that Nipendo are cool but it’s great to see their coolness recognized by a firm as august as Gartner. Nipendo have been named as a "Cool Vendor" in Gartner’s new report “Cool Vendors in Integration, 2014” by Keith Guttridge, Massimo Pezzini, Paolo Malinverno & Jess Thompson. It means that, in the authors’ opinion, Nipendo are “Innovative, Impactful and Intriguing”.