I took a trip in the way back machine and reviewed some of my favorite posts of 2007, which I have neatly repackaged in concentrate form here, its a mixture of good strong best practices and interesting topics:
Just to give a little heads up for readers of ESF…I will be recharging the batteries from here on out, so there will not be daily updates again until January 2. I might put up a few things but nothing that cannot be caught up on, in the new year. Thanks for all the comments, accolades and help from every one out there.
In 2007, we launched eSourcing Wiki, which has steadily increased in traffic. This is mainly due to viral growth and over 20 comprehensive topics that impact supply management. Check it out, you will definitely be impressed. Also, E-Sourcing Forum experienced another year of MTM traffic growth of 15-20% and now over 5000 unique visitors per month review the content that is published here.
Thanks to all that have visited this blog, and have a happy holiday season!
I charged forward on a new corporate website for Iasta last week. We have some big plans to “break out” in 2008, which I believe we are perfectly positioned to do. One thing that needed to be addressed was our imaging. I would appreciate comments, either public or private. Thanks!
Although I try to refrain from discussing Iasta or the Iasta solutions in this forum (as we have an entire website for that), I was pleased to notice that when reviewing Gartner’s 10 Strategic Technologies for 2008 (as reviewed in CRM Today), we’re already there with respect to at least four of the technologies and planning to be there with respect to five more in 2008. Furthermore, meeting these technology requirements has almost nothing to do with the specific sourcing functionality of the Iasta solution, and I can address all the points in general terms!
Here are the technologies where I think we’re already there:
Web Platform & WOA
We’ve been on-demand SaaS since day one - even before WOA was a common term.
Green IT
We’re a true multi-tenant SaaS application, which means we only need to have as many servers running as we need at any given time. Furthermore, our extensive use of virtualization technology in our new data centers means that we can bring new servers on-line quickly when they’re needed, and consolidate processes on a small pool of servers during non-peak periods (over weekends or holidays) to put unneeded servers to sleep until they’re needed again.
Social Software
Oh, baby! That’s us. As far as we know, this was the first vendor initiated blog on the ‘net dedicated to informing sourcing professionals everywhere about e-Sourcing and best practices and the first to pick up a daily publication schedule. We were the first vendors to launch a wiki for the global sourcing community as a whole, and not just our own user base, with the sole intention of educating and improving sourcing professionals
everywhere. And even though we’re as unsure as everyone else about what comes next in enterprise Web 2.0 social software, you can be sure that when we figure it out, we’ll be there.
Unified Communications
We’re already there in one regard, as evidenced by our seamless 24/5 support capabilities, and early adopters of IP telephony (as you can even skype me). However, once we move to bigger offices at the end of the year, you can be sure our new communications infrastructure will be up with the times.
Here are the technologies we’re working on:
Real World Web
Our e-Sourcing application is available in real-time and is used in real-time every day by real people on real projects all over the world. How do you make it more real-world than that? We have the answer - it’s called Live Event 2.0. We have already released the full version of Smart Optimization and now we are developing our new Live Event platform that will integrate true real-time optimization and cost modeling in auctions in what we believe will be a whole new way.
Virtualization 2.0
Although it’s hard to tell what the differences are between Virtualization 1.0, 2.0, and where we are, we have already started researching the technologies - software and hardware - that we will be bringing into our next major data center upgrade in 2009. Although we believe we’re already leading edge, especially on the software side, we recognize that there have been some great recent advancements in hardware as well and we are actively researching how we can make use of these technologies to serve our customers better and operate more green.
Computing Fabric
Right now, we see this as just another aspect of Virtualization 2.0 and will definitely evaluate how this type of technology can improve our service while reducing our environmental footprint. Green is good for us - as it helps us keep our costs - and yours - down.
Business Process Modeling
We’ve been making good use of this methodology over the past two years in the transformation of our support operations, and have recently been applying it to all other areas of our business - including product design and marketing - in efforts to ensure our entire business continues to operate in one unified manner on one central vision as we continue to double in client-base and size year-over-year.
Metadata Management
We recognize the importance of a central data store to make supplier management and project creation even easier than it already is in our application, and in conjunction with our Supplier Management module (slated for release early next year), we have started the initial planning process on this module as well.
And here are our plans for the rest of the top 10:
Mashup & Composite Apps
I’ll admit that this is one area we don’t really have a good handle on. The reality is that we have a seamlessly integrated suite built from the ground up on one common platform - a claim that very few vendors in the space can make (as most of our competitors have acquired anywhere between one and all of the modules they now offer for sale). We’re not sure how mash-ups could improve our service and performance, but it is on our radar and we are open to suggestions and comments.
I’d say that gives us a 9/10! However, this grade is just for fun, the real Gartner analysis for sourcing is being developed right now. I speak of the Gartner Magic Quadrant for Strategic Sourcing Applications. Now that the team is led by a prominent and well respected thought leader like Debbie Wilson, I expect this to be a great analysis of industry functionality. Unfortunately, Iasta will not qualify for the minimum revenue threshold that Gartner has established, so we will not be able to see our brightly shining star in the quadrant. However, I will be able to print it off and make a Sharpie dot in the upper right corner :). I suppose we could make a 50%, across the board price hike, and make the list, but that’s not really our M.O.
It is amazing how much the landscape has changed since the last quadrant in 2004, which really is not that long ago, but in the procurement applications market, things change by the Quadrant… I mean Quarter.
The Doctor, who runs Sourcing Innovation blog, is never short on heavy hitting analysis. I particularly like when he takes on topics in eSourcing (big surprise). Last week, he had an in depth breakdown of the core functionality that most think of for eSourcing -eRFx/eAuctions. Additionally, you will notice his theme of the 12 days of X-emplification and there are others days which have great information on topics such as spend analysis and contract management.
From his prologue, Michael sets up the series with, “This year, in the spirit of giving, and in the spirit of Questions to Ask your Optimization Vendor, the doctor exposes the elephants in the room (Part II), and the doctor goes mental (on Auctions and on Optimization), I’m going to give you twelve posts on twelve different sourcing and procurement technologies and services that expound upon the questions you should be asking, the answers you should be expecting, and, most importantly, why, so that when you set about choosing a technology to help you with your sourcing and procurement challenges, you choose the right one.”
Needless to say, his posts are packed with actionable information and, as should be expected, not light on the criticism of any vendor technology that lacks what he feels is critical for success. I considered offering some analysis of my own, but his spiked eggnog version of holidays, speaks for itself. My only recommendation is to take his analysis on each technology that applies to your company and reformat it for your own needs and challenges. These are worth saving.
I find the topic of Fortune 1000 M&A interesting because we have over 125 customers, and in any given year, it seems like 5-10% of them go through a major structural change, as a result of a merger with another massive company. Many times there are conflicting technology directions that exist, which must we worked out. Generally, one company is tasked with the lead on these decisions. Some of the best results I have seen, exist when the decisions are made upfront with a plan that gets switched on once the merger is complete. We are actively going through one of these now and were selected as the eSourcing provider for the new joint entity and things are going very, very well, with nicely mapped out plan and execution.
Boston Consulting Group recently published 10 Keys to success in regards to these types of mergers, in ISM’s Inside Supply Management.
Consider all legal requirements during the process and ensure that policies are issued and enforced, and that processes are managed within the bounds of these legal requirements.
Ensure that a cross-functional approach is established, with appropriate interactions with stakeholders, including putting in place clear executive ownership and accountability at the category level.
Launch the clean team (resources working in an environment where confidential information from both parties to the merger can be analyzed subject to terms agreed to by each party) as soon as possible, but always prioritize the efforts before the launch, as time lines can change.
Before the merger commences, assess the supply management org structure, capabilities/best practices and interaction with stakeholder groups to highlight the “best under both organizations” supply management strategies, tactics and tools.
Avoid rushing to deliver head-count savings.
Gain support during the pre-merger time frame for structural changes in supply management’s role in the organization.
Consider all the supply management savings levers in parallel to ensure that the full potential is defined and a plan to realize it is developed.
Review and define reaction strategies/tactics and supply market/supplier risks to assure supply and minimize the opportunity for financial surprises.
Implement a strong project management office to ensure that the synergy capture process executed.
Consider how categories and suppliers can be managed in waves to ensure that suboptimal supply agreements are not entered into a rush to deliver near-term savings, while compromising future flexibility and the total savings potential.
Supply Chain Finance is the optimization of both the availability and cost of capital within a buyer-centric supply chain. The availability and cost of capital is usually optimized through the aggregation, integration, packaging, and utilization of all of the relevant information generated in the supply chain in conjunction with cost analysis, cost management, and various supply chain finance strategies.
A Supply Chain Finance Solution, in comparison, is a combination of trade financing provided by a financial institution, a third-party vendor, or an enterprise itself, and a technology platform that unites the trading partners and the financing partners electronically and provides visibility into the various supply chain events that can serve as financing triggers.
Supply Chain Finance is a lot more than just factoring, early payment discounting, or inventory shifting. It’s balancing credit, financing options, inventory management, and other supply chain variables to optimize working capital, and much more. Thus, given the complexity of supply chain finance in today’s globalized supply chains, it is important to have some good strategies in order to ensure that you are reaping the benefits that are there to be gained. It’s also equally important to understand that some of the classic strategies are more apt to be strategies for failure than for success. To this end, here are three strategies for success and three strategies for failure to avoid to start you on your supply chain finance journey.
Strategies for Success
Balance Open Accounts and Letters of Credits
It’s important to understand an organization’s cost of capital versus the supplier’s cost of capital. Open account terms, for example, may bear lower fees than a letter-of-credit based transaction, but they can also restrict a seller’s access to working capital financing and increase its costs of working capital. The additional cost borne by the supplier for accepting extended payment terms, for example, could be finding their way back into the cost of goods sold.
Improve Forecast Accuracy
One of the best ways to take cost out of the supply chain is to take unnecessary inventory out of the chain, as this just leads to additional storage, overhead, and financing costs and losses when it has to be cleared at considerable markdowns.
Lower Your Supplier’s cost
A recent Aberdeen benchmark report found that 39% of suppliers indicated that their top issue is their ability to access financing at acceptable terms. The more it costs a supplier to make a product, the more it will cost a buyer to buy it. Consider using early payment programs, inventory ownership solutions, and / or virtual consignment financing to lower your supplier’s costs, and your own in the process.
Strategies for Failure
Shifting Inventory to Suppliers
Considering that most suppliers have to wait an unduly long time between their initial cost outlay to make a product and the eventual payment for that product in an environment where many buyers are now demanding payment terms that include 60, 90, or even 120 Days-Payable-Outstanding (DPO) and that most do not have large storage facilities or inventory management expertise, this drives up their costs from all angles. Their financing charges go through the roof as they have to take out more high-cost short-term financing, often at rates of 20% to 40% per annum (which are especially common in developing economies), their costs of operation go through the roof as they have to either acquire additional assets or pay a third party to manage the inventory, and their opportunity costs rise as they are prevented from ramping up production, due to lack of funds and storage, on New Product Development that could ultimately prove more profitable to them, and to you as the buyer. All of these costs just increase their cost of goods sold, and your price, and your “brilliant idea” to get rid of inventory carrying charges has only served to increase the total cost of ownership of the products you are buying. Nice move, hotshot!
Increasing Days Payable Outstanding
Most suppliers only have constricted access to short-term financing with a significantly higher cost of capital. This cost-shifting to suppliers might result in better Days-Payable-Outstanding (DPO) statistics to a buyer in the short term, but ultimately results in a less financially stable, and thus higher-risk supply base, and, eventually, an overall higher cost of goods sold to your supplier and you versus your competitors who have mastered sound SCF practices.
Mistaking Early Payment Discounts and Factoring for Financing Options
Early payment discount programs, regular or automated, do not address the root causes of financial flow inefficiency and can in fact exacerbate the underlying drivers. Instead of shifting inventory to a supplier, you’re essentially shifting costs and this often results in cost increases, rather than cost reductions, across the supply chain.
For more insights on Supply Chain Finance, check out the wiki-paper over on the e-Sourcing Wiki which includes an overview of the benefits to buyers and suppliers, strategies for success, strategies for failure, and tips on both buyer and supplier supply chain finance implementation.
I do not usually recommend signing up for reading material, but am making an exception here today. I receive a newsletter from ARC Advisory, available for sign up here, which is packed so full of information that I have trouble looking at it during the work day and have to save it for a quieter, less hectic time.
In the latest issue, there were over 30 different articles available covering topics such as enterprise supply chain, IT, manufacturing and acquisition news. Some of the articles are available with details of the content, while others give some general information and allow download by ARC clients.
Its a very good summary of all the available research from ARC and well structured for easy scanning. ARC is quietly starting to cover more topics in supply chain and supply management and this newsletter is a good way to see the progress they are making in this field.
I ran across an interesting article, which continued my recent trend of running into a great deal of new content about reverse auctions. Sort of a strange phenomenon, but true. This one was discovered on CFO Magazine and tells the story about research being done to create software which attempts to infer the lowest possible qualified bid by a supplier. However, the article left me looking around to see if I missed something, because it just ends, sort of like No Country for Old Men. There is no attempt to go into greater detail about a somewhat intriguing concept. This is about the best you get:
“Described in a working paper by Sandy Jap, professor at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School, and Prasad Naik, professor at the University of California Davis Graduate School of Management, the model — dubbed BidAnalyzer — aims to infer a supplier’s optimal bid; that is, the lowest price the supplier can offer while still making a profit. BidAnalyzer can begin to make such judgments with as few as three bids per supplier, although accuracy improves with more bids and cost-structure data.”
In No Country, I was just getting ready for the big scene and to watch Llewellyn valiantly win the showdown with the baddest man in movies since El Mariachi in Desperado. But, to no avail, it does not happen and I am left confounded to what I missed, just like this article. However, with the movie, I left very entertained and felt like I had spent my 2 hours wisely. The article, unfortunately, left me wondering why the page did not scroll further down and yearning for the 3 minutes back.
I guess I will wait for the sequel of Bid Analyzer to find out what happens to the suppliers.
A recent white paper by Morgan Chambers, Sourcing Governance: The Difference Between Success and Failure, notes that despite the relative maturity of the Outsourcing marketplace, there still seems to be a gap between the Sourcing activity and creation of the in-house capability necessary to manage these Sourcing relationships. The reality is that you cannot just negotiate an outsource agreement and then sit back and relax. The real key to success is in the way the relationship is managed and the governance that surrounds the relationship.
According to the white paper, the governance organization must ensure that there is strategic alignment between the business and its service providers. It must possess the skills and experience to leverage service capability and take advantage of economies of scale. It should do this using a “best practice” approach that recognizes the following four key areas of the governance model:
Strategy Management that ensures that the services remain aligned to corporate and business strategies, goals, and plans
Demand Management that ensures that change is delivered into the organization in time to meet business requirements and that planned benefits are realized
Cost and Contract Management that enables the organization to take advantage of economies of scale while leveraging the capabilities of the suppliers to support business plans and priorities
Service Management that ensures that service providers comply with their obligations and deliver the value proposition
This was a decent paper, but it needed to spend more time emphasizing the need to manage an outsourcing relationship effectively and what could happen if you don’t. The governance model suggested is good, but if you want a model to be adopted, you need to emphasize why the model is needed, what it addresses, and more importantly, what you stand to lose by failing to adopt a model.
Specifically, when it comes to outsourcing, if you think you can just outsource service a category and save money, and you haven’t taken any time to understand what the category is about or how it needs to be managed, you’ll not only lose the investment you made in selecting the firm and paying them to to manage the category, but you’ll also lose efficiency, customers, and ultimately profit. For example, if you think it’s their job to do dispute resolution and they think it’s yours and your customers’ and suppliers’ concerns don’t get addressed in a timely manner, and both your customers and suppliers have other companies they can buy from and other buyers they can sell to, guess what’s going to happen? That’s right, they’re going to leave. And instead of saving the 10% you hoped to save by outsourcing, your costs go up 30% and you start losing sales and profits.
If you need help with a category, the best place to start is often with your e-Sourcing software and services provider. If they’ve sourced the category before, they can help you understand the ins and outs and help you figure out whether it’s something you should be managing or outsourcing to a third party.
Ten years ago, the world was a simple place to do business. Make an honest product, follow the import and export regulations (which, relatively speaking, were few and far between), avoid known toxins, and you were all set to go. Today - different story. You have to document, and report on, everything you do, familiarize yourself with various hazardous material safety and bioterror acts, and keep on top of a never ending slew of regulatory compliance acts coming out of the European Union, including the directives on the Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS), Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE), and End of Life Vehicles (ELV).
Probably the most important act in the US is the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (SOX) of 2002, otherwise known as the Public Company Accounting Reform and Investor Protection Act of 2002, which established a new quasi-public agency (the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, or PCAOB), that was drafted and passed in response to a number of major corporate accounting scandals (including Enron, Tyco International, Peregrine Systems, and WorldCom) in an effort to restore public trust in accounting and reporting practices.
The Sarbanes-Oxley Act contains a number of major provisions that address the disclosure of internal controls at public companies, the certification of financial reports, auditor independence, personal loans to any executive officer or director, insider trading, and required disclosures. Basically, auditors must be independent, independent auditors must “attest” to the disclosure of internal controls, the chief officers must personally certify the financial reports, personal loans to executive officers or directors are banned, and insider trades are prohibited during pension fund blackout periods. Failure to comply with any of the requirements could result in enhanced cival and criminal penalties for violations of securities laws.
In Europe, it’s a different story. Depending on the products you make, it’s either the Restriction of Hazardous Substances Directive (RoHS) that restricts the use of six hazardous materials in the manufacture of various types of electronic and electrical equipment; the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals (REACH) that broadly covers the production and use of chemical substances; the Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Directive (WEEE) that imposes the responsibility for the disposal of waste electrical and electronic equipment on the manufacturers; the end of life vehicles (ELV) that force vehicle producers to have networks of facilities where the last owner of a vehicle may freely deposit such vehicle at the end of its life; or the cosmetics directive that was created to ensure product safety and public health while allowing the free movement of safe products within Europe.
Globally, we have the Kyoto Protocol, various industry codes of conduct, and forthcoming RoHS and WEEE equivalent acts in Asia. It’s a regulatory whirlwind, and it’s not about to stop. That’s why the e-Sourcing Wiki has started a wiki on regulatory compliance. Check it out - and feel free to add to it!
A recent article in ecommercetimes points to information from Booz Allen Hamilton on carbon footprint in food processing. Their basic definition is good for understanding the reasons for designing better ways to increase energy efficiency.
“The four primary factors driving businesses’ interest in the energy-efficient supply chains are cost savings, productivity gains, regulation concerns and emerging end customer interest.”
The story goes on to explain how farmers in the potato industry were given a very strict moisture tolerance for potatoes, but in an effort to maximize weight within the tolerance (and get more money for the harvest), they artificially raised the water levels. These extra grams of water meant more revenue for the same crop. In turn, it took the potato chip manufacturers, more energy to cook off the extra water and cost more to produce the chips.
The solution lies in aligning the incentives on both sides and allowing the manufacturer to take advantage of UK emissions credits while maintaining the producers margins on a lower moisture content food. Booz gives the following recommendations in summary:
“The first step is to understand the specific carbon footprint of your business’s supply chain, in the context of overall strategy and operations. The second step is to discern the extent to which emissions relate to your specific needs, versus those inherent in supply chain management. The third step is to define your approach. It is likely to be a combination of three types of measures:
1. Reducing your footprint through demand reductions and energy efficiency in design, construction and operation.
2. Replacing conventional energy sources and materials with low- or zero-carbon alternatives, including materials and equipment with low-embodied carbon.
3. Offsetting unavoidable carbon emissions through a program of credit trading and other verified means.”
This example comes from the UK but has similar examples everywhere. Understanding where the incentives are and tracing it back through the supply chains are complicated but useful goals in cost reduction.
While I was in the UK for our European user conference, our Director (frequent ESF contributor, Sean Delaney) and I went up to Manchester for some meetings. Although we had an excellent series of meetings in the Manchester metro area, what I might remember most was after the “day” was over.
Like most people (men especially), I have a list of things I want to do before I die. Some of these are border line and likely not possible (like summit Everest…ok not even close to possible) and others that I have accomplished, like completing a triathlon or having a son. There are also those which can be solved by timing and money. Two which fall under that category for me, were going to the World Cup and going to an English Premiership football match. Fortunately, I got the latter last week and did it with a great game between Manchester United and Sporting Lisbon, which concluded with an awesome goal by one of the worlds best players, Christian Ronaldo. I actually got it on my on video camera but have not had time to extract it, so here is the Sky Network version.
Recently, Michael Soon Lee posted an article over on uPublish.info on Ten Negotiating Mistakes that Cost You Thousands that deserves to be highlighted. Although it made heavy use of martial arts metaphors, all of the points are simple, important, and easy to understand on their own and we can easily work them into a sourcing framework.
1. Being Afraid To Bargain
Do you want to pay full price? Or do you want a deal? It’s up to you, but if you don’t bargain, you will pay full price.
2. Forgetting that Everything is Negotiable
Who says it takes seven days advance notice to ship an order? Why can’t it be five? Who says everything not on contract has to be at catalogue prices? If you’re buying $10K worth of an item - that’s worth a discount.
3. Believing It’s Not Worth Haggling Over Small Items
Let’s say you are buying for a large enterprise that buys 1M worth of Laser Toner annually and $250K worth of paper. Don’t just settle for a 10% discount on the Toner - a 5% discount on the paper is equal to $12,500. That could be your bonus!
4. Thinking About Ourselves First
Michael quotes the ancient Chinese saying “To defeat an opponent you must first think like an opponent.” Master bargainers are always thinking about what’s in it for the other party. There has to be a clear benefit to the other party for the other party to negotiate seriously. Before they give you a 20% discount, they’re going to want a significant order or commitment. A master bargainer figures out what the minimum commitment would need to be for an offer to make sense to the other party, and is prepared to ultimately make that offer.
5. Making The First Offer
As a buyer, once you make an offer, you can only go up. Try to get the seller to make the first offer because, as per the rules of the game, if it’s a buyer’s market, the price can only go down from their.
6. Being Too Nice
If you must make a first offer, make it low. And don’t be afraid of no. Remember, the negotiation isn’t over.
7. Being Too Eager
Take your time and don’t add undue pressure to the situation. The last thing you want to hear after a first offer is “okay”. That means you offered too much. Remember, in some cultures, negotiation’s do not start until after a mutual level of trust has been built between the parties - which might take two or three weeks of casual conversation and joint activities.
8. Not Doing Your Homework
Be sure to know what the current demand is, what the average profit margin in the industry is, what competitors are quoting, and what leverage you have. Otherwise, you’re not going to get the best deal.
9. Not Playing To Win
It’s true that you’re not going to win if you don’t think about the other party and are not willing to make the offer worthwhile for them, but that doesn’t mean you play to tie. Your goal is always to get the best deal you can while giving up as little as possible. After all, if the other party agrees to an offer, then they must think it’s fair and benefits them.
10. Missing Opportunities
Remember that everything’s negotiable and don’t make a single purchase off-contract without asking yourself “is this the best deal I can get?”.
Recently, Supply & Demand Chain Executive reported on the annual 3PL CEO survey by Penske Logistics and Northeastern University. The survey, which found that many CEOs are optimistic about global expansion opportunities and the overall growth prospect for the industry, also had some good news for Sourcing:
87% of survey respondents indicated that procurement is more involved in the logistics provider selection process than ever before
87% of companies have taken steps to address the pressures of more service for less and pricing pressures - an area where procurement can play a key role
The fact of the matter is that procurement should not only be involved in logistics provider selection, but should be involved before the award is made since logistics costs can often more than offset the expected savings from switching to a new supplier if not taken into account during the award process. That’s where modern strategic sourcing decision optimization technology comes into play. It allows you to make sure that the award will have the lowest total cost - and that you don’t make an award that actually costs more than the award you made last time because you failed to factor in more expensive transportation costs and import / export duties.
Furthermore, only procurement is in the right position to address the severe price pressures being placed on an industry where more is constantly being demanded for less. The only ways you can increase service without decreasing profits are to increase efficiency or decrease costs - and this is what procurement excels at. As more and more companies begin to realize this, we should see a brighter dawn for procurement.
![[del.icio.us]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/delicious.png)
![[Digg]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/digg.png)
![[Facebook]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/facebook.png)
![[Google]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/google.png)
![[Reddit]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/reddit.png)
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/stumbleupon.png)
![[Technorati]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/technorati.png)
![[Windows Live]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/windowslive.png)
![[Yahoo!]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/yahoo.png)
![[Email]](http://www.esourcingforum.com/wp-content/plugins/bookmarkify/email.png)
