Global Risk Management Solutions (GRMS), a managed services provider (MSP), has carved out a valuable niche targeting procurement organizations that want maximum assurance that the suppliers they are doing business with truly are who they say they are — and that they meet customized requirements for doing business with the company in question. Complementing other supplier management tools and source-to-pay suites as well as specialized supply chain risk management solutions, GRMS focuses on areas of supplier compliance that many organizations shortchange on an ongoing basis. Fueled by a supplier-funded revenue model and an outsourced data aggregation and validation service that is global in scope, spanning onboarding, regulatory compliance, environmental health and safety, risk management, diversity data and more, GRMS has kept the financial and business process adoption barriers to their offering low for procurement organizations. This two-part Spend Matters PRO Research brief provides an overview of the GRMS managed service compliance solution and how it can complement related supplier management, compliance and risk technologies (e.g., Hiperos/Opus Global, Aravo, Lavante, HICX, Ariba/SAP, SciQuest, Emptoris/IBM, Ivalua, Zycus, GEP, riskmethods, Resilinc) and information providers (e.g., D&B, BvD, Ecovadis) – as well as the overlap it has with other supplier management managed services providers like Achilles, Browz, PICS Auditing, Deloitte and Helios.
Spend Matters Premium Content:
Risk and Compliance
As our examination of supply risk management best practices for 2016 continues, we turn our attention to measuring supply risk scoring in business terms, incorporating variation and volatility into risk models beyond just structural complexity and fully considering supply risk management as an embedded process. Taken as a whole, this four-part Spend Matters Plus series collectively provides an outlook on how best to define and manage supply risk programs in 2016, based on lessons learned from leaders. Part 1 defined the major risk categories to which an organization is exposed. Part 2 discussed a risk management strategy based on global contemplation and local implementation, and part 3 discussed risk and reward alignment.
In our previous installment of this four-part Spend Matters Plus series presenting what your 2016 supply risk management game plan should look like, we discussed a risk management strategy based on global thinking and local implementation an organization could use to fast-track its development of a risk management strategy. In this part, we will cover risk and reward alignment through better supply risk responsibility as a key to adoption; getting visibility with a C-level composite supply risk metric; and getting suppliers on board, before moving on to discuss how to monitor and manage your risk management program for success in the final post of the series.
Earlier this week, more than 20 states and a host of industry groups officially filed suit against the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)’s Clean Power Plan. Before that, a U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals stayed EPA’s new “water rule” in all 50 states. Both of these developments came after a late June ruling in which the US Supreme Court struck down EPA-directed regulations for limiting mercury and toxic emissions from coal and oil power plants – known as the MATS (Mercury and Air Toxics Standards) rule. From a procurement and supply chain vantage point, that ruling was arguably the most important decision the nation’s highest court has made in the past decade. Not only does it cut to the very heart of procurement’s mission to manage costs, but it has direct linkages with energy sourcing and category management. This Spend Matters Plus brief analyzes the implications of these three EPA-driven regulations for procurement practitioners and supply chain organizations and provides recommendations for both manufacturers and non-manufacturers on how to take action around policy and regulations.
It's true: Businesses can get in the independent and freelance worker game without the compliance risk that can rear its ugly head. Andrew Karpie, research analyst, services and labor procurement, presents Businesses Can Engage Independent and Freelance Workers and Mitigate Compliance Risk – Here’s How. Get your copy today!
It’s another Flashback Friday here on Spend Matters. You don’t want to risk missing out on another one of our most popular Ask the Expert webinars of all time: Providers Who Actually Get to the Root of Risk & Compliance. As Thomas Kase, vice president of research, warns in this webinar from our archives, risk is lurking ahead for every procurement organization regarding finances, performance and compliance. You need to manage this risk to avoid the consequences. How do you do this effectively? And, which solution providers offer the best tools to help procurement organizations tackle risk? (Hint: Check out the webinar!)
Policy Meets Procurement and Category Management: Analysis and Implications of the Supreme Court Striking Down EPA Regulations [PRO]
In a late June ruling, the US Supreme Court struck down Environmental Protection Agency directed regulations for limiting mercury and toxic emissions from coal and oil power plants. From a procurement and supply chain vantage point, the ruling is arguably the most important decision the nation’s highest court has made in the past decade. Not only does it cut to the very heart of procurement’s mission to manage costs, but it has direct linkages with energy sourcing and category management. The decision also highlights the need for procurement to work more closely with public affairs and public policy teams inside their organizations. This Spend Matters PRO brief analyzes the implications of the ruling for procurement and supply chain organizations and provides recommendations for manufacturers and non-manufacturers alike on how to take action around policy and regulations.
Contract management is undergoing a transformation, moving from the back of the procurement kitchen to nearly taking center stage. A good part of the reason is the corporate transition from a more passive "risk viewed as lack of compliance" efforts toward a more dynamic and comprehensive approach to risk management. This approach doesn't just examine legal clauses as such. Nor does it merely ensure that agreed upon prices and SLA deliverables are met, although those reasons are obviously part of the equation. There’s more to it – much more. In this Spend Matters PRO research brief, we begin by reviewing the core components of CLM systems, and then we explore the path to predictive contract negotiations, delving into the intersections of big data, predictive analytics and contract management.
Over the past decade, supplier management solutions have evolved dramatically. Many started by serving as basic tools to meet data gathering needs for both procurement- and accounts Payable-led supplier onboarding to becoming effective instruments supporting sourcing initiatives. More recently, these solutions have even started to turn risk management initiatives from a lagging rear-view mirror exercise to a forward-looking assessment process that helps corporations stay on top of their third-party risk exposure. But what is next for these solutions? At Spend Matters, we think it is a fairly low-hanging fruit to more actively bring in contractual data into your SLM or third party management solutions. This is precisely what Hiperos is aiming to accomplish. The provider’s latest release is taking aim for the first time at this area, joining a set of related – although not yet directly competitive – capabilities from Apttus, Seal and others.
Procurement has increasing access to multiple levels of insider information. And just as we have seen enforcement impacting procurement and supply chain activities centered on FCPA compliance, it is likely an increasing set of activities tied to potential information leaks in the capital markets area will come under more scrutiny as well. In the first installment of this Spend Matters PRO research brief examining the potential for insider trading based on procurement information, authored by Thomas Kase, vice president of research, we covered lessons from other areas of the business as well as introducing the types of insider information that could be acted on by those inside the company or shared with external hedge funds or other parties. In this installment, we explore what you need to know about the potential for procurement and insider trading based on increasing data availability within procurement and supply chain organizations and key action steps you can take to prevent breeches.
Have you considered the potential for insider trading violations and the ensuing lawsuits that could arise from access to procurement information? Perhaps this hasn't even entered your mind. With increasing data availability (spend data, supplier risk/management information, demand data) at the fingertips of procurement professionals and others in the organization, the opportunity to access information that could be used to provide an "advantage" in the capital markets has never been greater. Traditionally, such information (if available at all) was available solely to company “insiders” who could only trade within certain windows (and with other restrictions placed on them). In this multi-part Spend Matters PRO analysis, Spend Matters Vice President of Research Thomas Kase explores the growing potential of procurement-related information to create the opportunity for insider trading information.
How much information do you share internally? How much should you share? Who has a need to know? These are important questions to ask as you drive procurement change management and solution adoption throughout your organization. Providing timely information and presenting it in a way that makes the context clear in the hands of the right business users, who can take corrective action before the situation gets out of hand, is key to maintaining a consistent level of performance across the organization. In this Spend Matters PRO research brief, we consider the brewing information clash that companies are likely to face with exploding reams of procurement information available to an increasing number of stakeholders – and non-stakeholders – alike.