In the first post in this series we covered and quoted many of the announcement factoids and underpinnings of the new National Strategy for Global Supply Chain Security announced by the White House last week. We'll continue to share some of the most important elements in this post, focusing first on some of the motivations behind the development of this strategy, and then how the White House intends to translate policy and supply chain analysis into action after planning is complete. We apologize again for quoting so extensively from the news rather than offering our own reporting and analysis, but we think there's no need to cloud the release with additional commentary.

[More]

For someone who has been researching and covering supply chain risk for a decade, it's extremely refreshing to see what once were esoteric topics become mainstream, albeit due to avoidable -- and unavoidable, in certain cases -- tragedies that disrupted global supply chains. But the topic has not just hit center stage from a boardroom perspective. It's now mainstream to the point where President Obama is compelled to take action and develop a National Strategy for Global Supply Chain Security. For those who have not yet read the announcement, it's worth spending more than the minute or two it takes to scan to really reflect on what it represents that the White House is getting involved in the topic. As far as we are aware, it appears to be the first time that a large government has called out supply chain risk and seeks to tackle the challenge head on -- given its importance to national and global security.

[More]

This post is the second in a series on looking at sustainable jobs creation in the US. It is based on contributions we have made to Surplus Record, an industrial publication and catalog. Please click here for Part 1 in this series.

To support the future of manufacturing for generations to come in the US, it will be critical to reverse the trend of the US looking more like Europe around environmental policy and restrictions. Arguably, the most dangerous threat to manufacturing in the US is neither the country's Executive Branch (i.e., the president) or the legislature (Senate and House of Representatives), but rather what we once heard described as the fourth, all powerful, branch of government: the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The Simpsons Movie does a great job positioning the EPA for what it would like to behave as: a sixth branch of the military.

[More]

Over on Procurement Leaders blog, my old friend Paul Teague recently touched on the issue of jobs growth and creation, especially in the context of re-shoring manufacturing work from East to West. In his post, Paul mentions that President Obama is about to "make a big pitch for legislation to allow tax breaks for companies that insource jobs back to the US ... [and in a recent] weekly radio address, he pleaded with manufacturers to bring jobs back home, saying they should ask what they can do to bring jobs back to the country that made them successful." Paul then goes on to argue for capitalism -- and by extension, the Invisible Hand -- as the best tool to bring jobs back (i.e., re-shore when they make economic sense). Yet here at Spend Matters, we take a slightly different viewpoint.

[More]

In the first post in this series, we considered some of the higher level reasons government purchasing authorities should work to leverage some of the same general strategic sourcing and supply base consolidation techniques as the private sector, inclusive of complex services categories such as printing. Yet the mere existence of a centralized contract or buying framework does not imply that behaviors will change at the frontlines of department and agency purchasing decisions. But a recent Executive Gov article suggests indirectly that it's important to compel those that make buying decisions to justify the reasons for not leveraging a centralized contract rather than making individual procurement and contracting decisions the default.

[More]

We recently offered our commentary in two posts (here and here) based in part on the opportunity and current participation of Federal agencies and departments in buying off of centrally managed/negotiated GSA agreements. This analysis got us thinking about the broader value that leveraged buying arrangements can generate for Federal, state, regional and city procurement organizations outside of simple unit cost reduction (when indeed the contracts are good -- which is not always the case). The result of this effort is a non-exhaustive list of five reasons we believe leveraging centrally managed supplier contracts and agreements makes sense in the public sector. Many of these items are also relevant in a private sector context, both when it comes to leveraging a centrally procurement organizations as well as working with group purchasing organizations (GPOs).

[More]

In the private sector, shareholders can ultimately hold companies accountable for making poor buying decisions that waste cash. Yet when it comes to public sector procurement, constituents (i.e., tax payers) are usually so far removed from the buying processes that the nuances about how dollars are spent -- and over spent -- often go unnoticed. Here at Spend Matters, we know a number of folks in public sector procurement who are extremely dedicated to improving government-related acquisition activity in both the US and UK. Yet the yardstick by which we measure public sector activity must be more transparent.

[More]

Spend Matters welcomes a post from our Lead Analyst, Thomas Kase.

Right now, sitting on the Federal Register -- to be managed by the Department of Agriculture -- is a proposed set of rules addressing a new Christmas Tree Promotion, Research, and Information Order. Note that this is not April 1st!

At Spend Matters we like risk management and compliance when needed as much as anyone. But do the proposed rules, covering "new Christmas tree information collection requirements" really make sense to anyone outside our government? As background, the monetary value of this industry is relatively small, below $500 million per year. Roughly 19 million fresh cut trees are sold in the US each year, with nearly 2 million being imported -- with Canada unsurprisingly making up 99.72 percent of imports. Keeping the small size of the industry in mind, if this small sector can swing federal involvement, imagine what industries with bigger lobbyist budgets can do?

[More]

Across the pond, my colleague Peter Smith penned a thought provoking post last week exploring how, in his view, an EU bailout would do little to help contain supply risk in the PIGS countries. Knowing Peter, his personal definition of supply chain risk planning here is probably weighing the cost of booking travel to a favorite destination in Europe against the risk that a the Michelin-starred restaurant he was planning on visiting -- which would be cheaper than in recent memory, given the slide of the Euro -- on the trip going bust right as he planned to show up like other suppliers in the same market. Alas, whether your supplier is a purveyor of haute cuisine or more on the castings or forgings side, the same fate might awake those operating in the at-risk regions. Here, Peter asks some great questions we should ask regardless of whether the banks have to write off their debt or take fifty cents on the dollar for it.

[More]