“Introducing supplier fees for vendors who send invoices in a world where computing on unstructured data becomes easier and cheaper will end up being the downfall for certain b2b network companies as their networks (and shareholders) will lose value as vendors opt-out large scale.”
“I was always against the business model of charging suppliers in principle and instead wanted to focus on creating value for suppliers and then earning some of that value from them.” – Christian Lanng (LinkedIn Post) Nov. 2023
Random Thoughts On A Monday
Here is my short response to the above post:
Your following statement sums it up perfectly, Christian Lanng:
“I was always against the business model of charging suppliers in principle and instead wanted to focus on creating value for suppliers and then earning some of that value from them.”
Dale Neef’s 2001 book E-procurement: From Strategy to Implementation talked about the EDI barrier, and the emergence of XML as a better way to engage more second and third-tier suppliers immediately comes to mind. – https://bit.ly/41dUmyF
While we saw advances in technology, the increase in deeper engagement of the extended supply chain hasn’t yet materialized for two reasons:
1. Misaligned policies
2. The misguided belief that it was a technology-only issue
Let’s consider the public sector for a moment.
Executive VP for the Canadian Federation of Independent BusinessCorinne Pohlmann reported that few CFIB’s 97,000 members bid on government contracts even though they are automatically informed of RFP opportunities electronically. The consensus is that responding to requests costs too much time and resources, and they cannot win business.
In the above instance, the fee is the lack of return on the supplier’s time and resources investment.
Adding insult to injury by charging suppliers to bid or sending invoices for payment doesn’t make sense.
Procurement Insights
Random Thoughts On A Monday: Should Suppliers Pay To Do Business With You?
Posted on December 11, 2023
0
“Introducing supplier fees for vendors who send invoices in a world where computing on unstructured data becomes easier and cheaper will end up being the downfall for certain b2b network companies as their networks (and shareholders) will lose value as vendors opt-out large scale.”
“I was always against the business model of charging suppliers in principle and instead wanted to focus on creating value for suppliers and then earning some of that value from them.” – Christian Lanng (LinkedIn Post) Nov. 2023
Here is my short response to the above post:
Your following statement sums it up perfectly, Christian Lanng:
“I was always against the business model of charging suppliers in principle and instead wanted to focus on creating value for suppliers and then earning some of that value from them.”
Dale Neef’s 2001 book E-procurement: From Strategy to Implementation talked about the EDI barrier, and the emergence of XML as a better way to engage more second and third-tier suppliers immediately comes to mind. – https://bit.ly/41dUmyF
While we saw advances in technology, the increase in deeper engagement of the extended supply chain hasn’t yet materialized for two reasons:
1. Misaligned policies
2. The misguided belief that it was a technology-only issue
Let’s consider the public sector for a moment.
Executive VP for the Canadian Federation of Independent Business Corinne Pohlmann reported that few CFIB’s 97,000 members bid on government contracts even though they are automatically informed of RFP opportunities electronically. The consensus is that responding to requests costs too much time and resources, and they cannot win business.
In the above instance, the fee is the lack of return on the supplier’s time and resources investment.
Adding insult to injury by charging suppliers to bid or sending invoices for payment doesn’t make sense.
What do you think?
IMPORTANT EDITOR’S NOTE
Of course, the “fee gate” swings both ways, per Anthony Nichols‘ article “Suppliers: Your Fees are Your Fees” – https://bit.ly/41e8PdX
30
Share this:
Related