The devastating events in Haiti last week have organizations around the world scrambling to help. Standing behind many of those organizations is a unique supply chain software and services organization, Aidmatrix. A non-profit that supports non-profits and relief agencies with the technology and supply chain services needed to get the right aid to where it’s in the most demand.
Aidmatrix is currently working overtime to support the relief efforts in Haiti. AMR Research recently spoke with former Wisconsin Governor Scott McCallum, who is now the company’s CEO and president, about the organization and its work. We offer this case study of Aidmatrix’s work with a call for help. If you’d like to give to the relief efforts in Haiti, Aidmatrix has set up a donation site where organizations are listing specifically what they need (http://www.aidmatrix.org/haiti.htm). You can help fill those needs, whether it’s through cash or if your company has the needed supplies
Trying times like these demonstrate why AMR Research is glad we’re in a position to showcase and share the supply chain best practices that get help where it’s needed.
3 commentsOctober 12th, 2009Charles Dominick, SPSM - Next Level Purchasing
In the last post, I described how price adjustment clauses are commonly misunderstood and end up causing pricing problems between buyers and suppliers.
So, what can you do to ensure that price adjustment provisions are adhered to when math isn’t everyone’s strongest skill (especially suppliers)?
Here are some tips:
Write out the price adjustment method in words in your RFP and contract
Include a formula in your RFP and contract
Demonstrate the calculation of a new price at a pre-bid meeting
Have a specific date for the adjustment
Sometimes index values are revised. So be sure to state that the price is adjusted on your specified date and will not be revised, even if the index is revised later.
One more tip…YOU tell the supplier what the price is, not the other way around.
Yes, we often lean on our suppliers to do certain things that we could do. After all, they are getting paid, right?
Well, some things you should do yourself. Calculating new prices is one of them.
Look, you’re going to have to do the calculation anyway to verify that the supplier got it right. And we’ve established that many professionals – even those with high levels of intellectual horsepower – suck at math.
So, don’t leave your pricing to chance. You tell your supplier what your new pricing is.
Well, that wraps it up for this series. I hope that you’ve learned some techniques for ensuring better communication with your suppliers for better supplier performance.
I know that if you apply everything I’ve covered, you will have fewer supplier problems and will minimize your chance of getting your industry’s equivalent of dog food delivered to you.
When a buyer is in a position to apply some leverage in negotiations with software vendors, there are three critical provisions that can be used, but may require a significant push:
Maintenance fees as a percentage of the discounted license fee, not the list license fee.
Language that locks the software vendor into providing a defined set of services throughout the term. Many software vendors offer several types of support, but will redefine the terms over time requiring buyers to purchase a more expensive level of support.
A fixed percentage of the license fees over a period – usually no more than five years.
On the other hand, here are two provisions, related to your software license, that would be great to have, but are very difficult to obtain because vendors don’t have much flexibility:
Paying for and receiving maintenance only when it is most convenient. Ideally one would like to begin paying maintenance only when licenses go into production and value has been gained, instead of immediately upon licensing.
Negotiating the price of maintenance down between 17% and 20%. Wall Street has adopted this percentage as a predictor of gross margins. Even though the ongoing maintenance revenue coming into a public company like Oracle depends greatly on other factors like the original discount and whether licensees simply drop maintenance, Wall Street can calculate this percentage and ask about it. If a public software company began allowing this percentage to erode, Wall Street would hammer it.
In summary, I suggest that buyers negotiate where the vendor has the ability to be flexible. Remembering these two steps will save companies a lot more money:
Get the greatest possible discount at the beginning and make sure that the annual maintenance percentage is tied to it.
Find out what discount the government and similar sized companies receive.
Don’t overbuy.
Purchase fewer licenses than project people may need. This won’t be easy because technical people naturally want to have enough licenses and budget managers don’t want to ask for more funds. Push back, because the penalty for not buying enough licenses is buying more, while the penalty for buying too many is annual maintenance on extra “shelfware”. Most software vendors won’t sell maintenance on just 75 if 100 are licensed.
Add commentSeptember 28th, 2009Charles Dominick, SPSM - Next Level Purchasing
In this penultimate post of this eight-part series, I’m going to help you understand the subtleties of using escalation clauses.
Wait. There’s a problem already.
Do you know what it is?
Well, think about the term “escalation clause.” What does that imply?
That there is only one way for a price to go: up.
And, as we saw in late 2008, prices for many commodities can go down. Way down.
The last thing you’d want is for your supplier to say after you approach them for what you thought was a contractually guaranteed price reduction would be “But the contract has an escalation clause. It’s clear from that terminology that the intent was to only adjust the price upward.”
So some people use the term “escalation/de-escalation clause” or “price adjustment clause” to avoid such situations. Hey, any way that you can prevent a possible dispute is a good thing.
Now, what might a price adjustment clause communicate?
It may communicate that “The price for paper on October 1, 2008 is $40.00/box. The price will be adjusted on October 1, 2009. The price will increase or decrease by the same percentage (rounded to one decimal point, example: 1.1%) that the Producers Price Index for ‘Writing and Printing Papers’ Series ID WPU091301 increased or decreased during the period from July 2008 to July 2009.”
What is the new price?
I always ask my seminar attendees this type of question and give them the applicable Producer’s Price Index table. About 5% of the attendees get it right.
Then, I give them a formula. About 12% of them get it right.
And when it has come time for suppliers to calculate their new price, I’ve seen them get it wrong, too.
This is a problem. When you are accepting bids, it is important for every supplier to base its price on the price adjustment formula and how they expect it to change their price in the future.
Doing so ensures against the possibility that one supplier can come in with a low bid, win your business, arbitrarily adjust its price in a year, and then end up being a worse deal than if you selected another supplier. Using a price adjustment clause while bidding ensures that all suppliers are on a level playing field for your sake and theirs.
In the next post – the last one of this series – I’ll give you some tips for ensuring that your price adjustment clause is understood and adhered to by your suppliers.
Many companies have worked hard to develop a “preferred” LTL carrier network for their domestic and trans-boarder shipments with each supplier adhering to the specifications of shipment tender.
However, many times export and import shipments are left up to the forwarder or transfer agent to make arrangements for the “door to port” or “port to door” also known as “inland freight” therefore adding another layer of charges utilizing specialized carriage.
Specialized carriers in the export and import market utilize a completely different rationale when costing shipments. Many in the export/import market utilize a “pick-up” cost and a “delivery” cost and a “line-haul” cost from point A to point B for the particular shipment.
Allow your “preferred” LTL carrier network to handle these shipments, preserving your contracted rates and discounts and allowing complete control and transparency of your tender to or from the port.
All LTL carriers whether union or non-union are all capable of entering and existing the ports.
In a recent Friday Rant entitled “Reverse Auctions Have Become the Aero-Bars of Sourcing”, SpendMatters’ Jason Busch describes the all too frequent abuse of Reverse Auctions. He quotes David Clevenger, formerly of FreeMarkets, who notes that “the problem with reverse auctions may be the same as with any powerful weapon in the wrong hands”. A knife can be used for murder or for life-saving surgery.
I believe there are at least two factors that contribute to abuse. I recall Stephen Covey’s leadership example which describes the importance of both skill and integrity. A skilled surgeon lacking integrity might perform an unnecessary operation. (Think Michael Jackson’s repeated cosmetic surgeries.) An unskilled surgeon with integrity would botch the job. You need both skill and integrity!
Clevenger describes abuses such as pre and post bid negotiations and the inclusion of unqualified competitors to drive market behavior. I would add to the list Phantom Bids (i.e. no intention of moving business but merely driving the incumbent’s pricing down via a competitive exercise). Note that none of these tactics rely on Reverse Auctions. They can all be wielded with equal abuse using a paper sealed bid. These are issues of integrity that soil Sourcing’s reputation regardless of the medium. In this instance, Reverse Auctions merely automate an unethical practice.
Skill is a different issue. As a former eSourcing trainer, I was often frustrated at companies’ unwillingness to provide adequate training. There are a number of important differences with the eSourcing process and tactics. Our company always recommended both training and mentoring as buyers geared up. I must respectfully disagree with Jason regarding software vendor responsibility. We didn’t tell unskilled buyers to “go tear it up”! Conversely, we often argued strongly in favor of a thorough implementation process. Unfortunately there were far too many shortcuts with the ultimate outcome being, among other things, unintended supplier abuses.
Anyone employing Reverse Auctions must have both skill and integrity or there will be abuse. However, we shouldn’t blame the tool. Neither we nor suppliers should generalize that reverse auctions are bad. It is correct that Reverse Auctions in the hands of buyers who are unskilled or who lack integrity are bad.
However, not all sourcing professionals lack skill and/or integrity. I am not denying abuse. But I’m concerned that suppliers’ claims become another excuse to resist a legitimate tool that, when used properly, helps buyers achieve best value. Let’s not abandon a fair and effective tool because of the abuse of some.
We put a large piece of business out for bid telling suppliers we plan to award a five year contract with indexed pricing. Suppliers bid accordingly and we make the award. The lawyers are unable to reach agreement on the final contract terms but the supplier behaves as if the contract was signed. Three and a half years into the award period we decide to go out for bid telling the incumbent we have no obligation since the contract was never signed. What are we training suppliers to do?
The supplier provides highly competitive pricing based on Net 30 payment terms. After the fact we tell them we need Net 60. They are happy to provide those terms but need to increase the price since Net 60 will require them to obtain a Letter of Credit. We say “no thanks” but pay Net 60 anyway. What are we training suppliers to do?
In the face of uncertainty, suppliers pad their pricing. From the supplier’s perspective, the above behavior was not anticipated, at least the first time. What happens the next time we ask this supplier for rock bottom pricing? Role modeling is the most powerful form of teaching. What are we role modeling to our suppliers? We should pay close attention to that. What goes around, comes around!
One of the nice things about getting out to conferences, is gaging the pulse of what people are looking for, at this time. Not only are you hearing practitioners discuss what their companies are seeking, but you get the same conversation 10-15 times per hour. This year, its score carding / SPM and spend analysis. If a vendor showed up and wanted to build momentum on reverse auctions, the response will be much cooler. Although most of the attendees are very familiar with auctions, and many use or intend to use them, they do not want to talk about them a lot. It seems that they are expected and not worth long discussion. In other words, they have been commoditized.
This is fine, of course. Iasta made the commitment into the full sourcing lifecycle years ago and those decisions are paying off now, as we continue our strategy of innovation in some areas and fast followers, in others.
I think the exhibit hall on Sunday was fairly light on traffic, especially when compared to Las Vegas. However, out of the people I talked to, we generated 6 product demos, to be scheduled, in one session. I can see many of the attendees looking for very specific things with intentions of learning and acting. I will take quality over quantity any day.
This has definitely been a good start to the conference. St Louis has been a good venue, with everything tightly packed. That is, everything but restaurants, which are 9 blocks away. I have never been able to figure out the lay out of down town St Louis. Its a big city, but it is nearly impossible to find where the people are and where things are happening, outside of the one block Laclede landing area. I think there must be hidden spots that the locals do not want outsiders to know about. I bet there are beer pixies there, that keep every ones glasses full with Budweiser.
It’s hard to come up with a good definition for supplier enablement. Depending on who you ask, it is either supplier networks, catalog management and / or ((c)XML-based) punchouts, e-Document Management, a Supplier Portal that enables e-Procurement and / or e-Sourcing, or some (often proprietary) combination thereof. The common thread between most of the definitions that one encounters is a greater utilization of technology solutions to streamline procurement and / or sourcing processes by seamlessly connecting the buyer to its suppliers through a common application or platform.
However, none of these definitions really get to what supplier enablement should be. Supplier enablement should be about providing a buyer’s supplier with the solutions that the supplier needs to more efficiently and productively do business with the buyer in such a way that the buyer is also able to conduct business with the supplier more efficiently and productively. It is true that such a solution will need to be based on one or more technology solutions, but the focus needs to be on the business processes required and the capabilities of the supplier, not on the capabilities of the technology supplier. The best technology in the world is useless if the supplier doesn’t have the technical capabilities in-house to make use of it.
Supplier Enablement is relevant as it can significantly increase performance metrics such as spend under management and enterprises that leverage supplier enablement solutions enable their suppliers faster, better, and more efficiently than those that do not. Well executed supplier enablement reduces administrative errors, increases inventory turns, eliminates parallel processes, reduces cycle times, maximizes value, and improves compliance.
To this end, it’s important to understand the four core capabilities that will be required in any end-to-end supplier enablement solution.
Catalog Management
If the goods and services the intended users of the e-Procurement system need to order on a regular basis are not in the system, this will just result in the system being by-passed and proliferation of the maverick spending that the organization hoped to avoid through the acquisition of the e-Procurement system. Thus, catalog management is quite important.
Supplier Network
A supplier network, which is becoming a staple offering of many of the larger e-Procurement providers, is a single point of integration that provides a many-to-many connection between buyers and suppliers, allowing them to transact in real time. The major selling points of these networks is pre-enabled suppliers and the ability to find new suppliers almost instantaneously if you are a buyer and the ability to support multiple buyers through the same technology platform and win new opportunities for business if you are a supplier.
e-Document Management
The most critical, and most often overlooked, component of enablement, regardless if the trading entity is acting in a buyer or a supplier capacity, is that of information and document management. These days, each trading party needs to maintain a host of information on each party it trades with, including incorporation information and status, owners, home country, operating countries, financials, products, services, contacts, CSR status, regulatory compliance, and current contracts as well as a slew of documents including RFx’s, purchase orders, shipping receipts, goods receipts, invoices, payment receipts, product information sheets, and trade documents.
Supplier Portal
A supplier portal is a web-based interface designed to allow a supplier to easily conduct business with a buyer by providing them with a one-stop-shop access point for receiving and replying to RFX requests, participating in auctions, receiving and returning contracts, providing catalogs, receiving purchasing orders, replying with shipment receipts and invoices, and receiving goods receipts and payments. It also allows the supplier to maintain and update all of their information as required by the buyer and to check order and payment status at any time.
For more insights on #, check out the Supplier Enablement: The Secret to Sourcing Success wiki-paper over on the e-Sourcing Wiki which includes more detail on the core capabilities, an overview of buyer-side and supplier-side challenges that will need to be addressed, and some best practices to help ensure a successful project.
Aberdeen just released its report on Supplier Enablement, Connecting with Suppliers to Build Lasting Relationships which found that supplier enablement continues to be one of the top three challenges for procurement professionals looking to transform their procurement organizations, gain better visibility into their supplier enablement processes and supplier relationships, and increase spend under management.
According to the study, best-in-class enterprises demonstrate that supplier enablement can positively impact the business when the right technologies and practices are employed. Best-in-class enterprises, which have 78% under management compared to an average of 44% for all other peer enterprises, enable 50% of their suppliers versus the 23% enabled by their peers, are 25% more likely to document and share their best practices, and are almost twice as likely to have full visibility into enablement activities, realize transaction processing costs 47% lower than their peers. Thus, this study confirms which many of us were starting to suspect, that supplier enablement not only makes suppliers feel good, but generates significant bottom line savings for an organization.
Aberdeen defines an enabled supplier relationship as one that includes one or all of the following capabilities:
automated exchange of documents and communications
on-line catalog management
active management of supplier information through a self-service process
Of these activities, the third is the most important. When it comes time to source a category, it takes little effort to click the “send” button to send a document to a supplier, and you do not care about the entire catalog – just the product(s) in question. However, if you do not know who your suppliers are, what they can provide you with, and how to contact them, and the relevant individuals in the organization, you will not be very productive. Moreover, with large companies typically having tens of thousands of suppliers, managing this information is an onerous task – but if you are a large customer, it takes very little effort for a supplier to manage their information for you – especially if they want your business.
So what’s the best way to achieve supplier enablement? If at all possible, select a sourcing suite that has, or is about to have, supplier (self) management capabilities (like your forum sponsor, Iasta, that will be releasing an initial version of Supplier Management with a Supplier Self-Service portal in the fall), or a solution that integrates into the sourcing and/or procurement suites you already use. If this is not possible, I’d recommend going with a specialty provider of supplier information management (SIM) services, like Aravo who specialize in integrating SIM management applications into the sourcing, procurement, and / or ERP tools that you already have.
Then, as Aberdeen so eloquently states, include suppliers in the enablement process – leverage their experience and technologies to ensure collaborative and efficient interactions during enablement and through the lifetime of the relationship.
Finally, as Aberdeen also points out, be sure to standardize processes along the way that leverage leading technologies, like XML (eXtensible Markup Language) and SOA (Services Oriented Architecture), and leading 3rd party services, such as Ariba’s Supplier Network, Austin Tetra’s integration services, or Integration Point’s Global Trade Management software.
62% of respondents to the recent annual ISM survey said they received bonuses on top of their regular salaries. On average the bonuses received were around 16%.
Personally I like the idea of rewarding individuals based on their performance. However, the largest element of the bonus measure is often based on the organisations performance. The downside to this is that it does not reflect the individuals’ performance and is therefore less motivational.
When attempting to measure the performance of procurement, organisations will resort to such tactics as rebates, which frankly, is a very blunt stick. It does not take into account supplier performance and non price improvements like client web portals etc.
So what is the solution?
I do believe that the time is now right to start to look at rewarding procurement differently. The benefits of eSourcing are easy to measure. Whether you conduct a live event or closed bid the resulting commercial benefits are transparent and auditable.
But what about the implemented savings achieved I hear you say? So often when it comes to implementing the most commercial sourcing strategy the stakeholder will allow some leakage in the award. As we know from a recent Aberdeen survey this leakage is typically around 2%.
As procurement professionals whilst eSourcing takes us part of the way towards accountability, I think new developments in SRM and Spend Analysis software complete the accountability circle. The automation of the complete sourcing process makes it more economical to quickly measure performance post contract award.
The ability not only to measure the negotiated benefit but to also monitor ongoing performance of suppliers now make it possible to reward procurement in a much more motivating fashion.
However, with any measure, it must not be too cumbersome to collate, it must align the individuals’ goals with the goals of the organisation, it must be transparent, and finally individuals must be able to track performance regularly. Here are some ideas for measuring performance (please feel free to suggest some more):
Implemented savings – this is to ensure stakeholders have buy in.
OTIF reports
Customer satisfaction – use online surveys to measure.
Customer satisfaction – measure complaints.
Design – e.g. in retail, measure number of top selling designs.
Quality – number of returns.
Contract compliance – measure % of spend through the contract.
Through Spend Analysis, and ultimately SRM tools, these measures can be automated and weighted. So, in your next performance review with your boss save everyone’s time and make the following proposal:
50% salary standard and guaranteed.
15% based on organisational performance.
35% based on the implemented deal benefits (based on the criteria listed above).
I would be interested in your feedback on their responses, however, I suspect they may not be ready for such a radical change.
A recent Research Brief from Aberdeen, Enabling Suppliers, Enabling Savings, notes that supplier enablement is one of the top three challenges for procurement professionals looking to increase spend under management and drive tangible cost savings to the bottom line.
According to the brief, effective supplier enablement includes:
In addition, they hypothesize the following actions, capabilities, and enablers are required:
adopt incremental BPO methodology and related services
cover entire business processes across multiple spend categories
achieve visibility into enterprise spending
collaboration across internal and external teams
supplier self-service tools
This was followed up by another Research Brief, Supplier Networks Drive Supplier Enablement, which noted that supplier networks can increase performance metrics such as spend under management significantly and that enterprises leveraging their supplier networks are enabling their suppliers in a faster, better and more efficient way.
The brief notes that an enterprise must realize the value if they are interested in fully enabling their supplier base. Having one central network to handle POs, invoices, and catalog management allows an enterprise to quickly enable suppliers in their base, communicate in a helpful manner, and manage key business transactions with ease.
What’s interesting to note is that although the focus on supplier enablement is well-founded and their recommendations close to what I’d recommend, the core capabilities they note for supplier networks do not dictate the need for a supplier network, merely the need for a fully functional supplier portal. A well-defined portal will allow a supplier to access cached copies of purchase orders, upload invoices, check payment status, manage their catalogs, and communicate with the buyer. A network may simplify and automate some of these tasks, but a network is not necessarily needed if an organization is merely beginning their journey on the road to supplier enablement.
Also interesting is that there is no mention of the enhanced benefits a supplier network can bring to a buyer beyond those benefits that would be found in an enhanced portal such as supplier search, interactive RFX’s, and enhanced collaboration. But that’s a topic for another post.
As with any business function, measurement in eSourcing is a fundamental key to success, but only if done right. That’s why the article on The 7 Deadly Sins of Performance Measurement and How to Avoid Them in a recent issue of the MIT Sloan Management Review is a must-read for e-Sourcing program managers. As the article points out, operational performance measurement remains an unsolved problem, as there are still a multitude of systems out there and generally no indication as to which one is the right one for your business. Nonetheless, even if the best way, and the best set of metrics to use, is unclear, there are definitely wrong ways to go about the problem.
Avoiding the wrong way starts with avoiding the seven common, but deadly, mistakes pointed out by Michael Hammer in his article. These are:
Vanity
Don’t just use measures that will inevitably make the organization, its people, and especially its managers, look good. Every organization has weaknesses, and the key to becoming best in class is improving upon them. However, you cannot improve upon a weakness you cannot identify.
Provincialism
Organizational boundaries and concerns should not dictate performance metrics.
Narcissism
Organizations often measure from their point of view when they should be measuring from their customer’s point of view.
Laziness
Many organizations assume they know what is important to measure without giving it adequate thought or effort.
Pettiness
Measuring only a small component of what is important.
Inanity
Implementing metrics without giving any thought to the consequences of these metrics on human behavior and, ultimately, on enterprise performance. People in an organization will seek to improve a metric they are told is important, especially if they are compensated for it, even if doing so has counter-productive consequences.
Frivolity
Not being serious about measurement in the first place.
So what can an organization do to avoid the seven deadly sins? The author offers four key steps.
Decide what to measure
Select the right things to measure, those aspects of organizational performance that are both controllable and important to achieving success.
Measure the right way
Use metrics that capture the essence of what needs to be measured in a usable form.
Use metrics systematically
Embed the metrics in a disciplined process for performance improvement.
Create a measurement-friendly culture
The organization must encourage the disciplined use of metrics for ongoing performance improvement rather than regarding them as threats to be feared or opponents to be vanquished.
Yesterday, I posted on Supplier Performance best practices. Today, I wanted to establish a list of things that suppliers should be providing, in some combination, to increase the value of their relationships with the buying organization. These items should be addressed in eRFx stage to determine the value add that each supplier brings to the relationship. This list is general and not necessarily comprehensive, but gives good insight into factors that should be considered and discussed with each valued supplier.
quality reputation
partnership differentiation capabilities
established contacts and cross-company knowledge
competitiveness
proven business development support, e.g. promotions
product design creation and development capabilities
collaborative product design
product selection/variety
consumer support/service
category management services
supplier conversion support
supply chain management
inventory balancing
order fulfillment rates
order-to-shipment lead times
returns management/defect support
delivery terms
payment terms
Many of these I found in a very old document that was meant for consulting suppliers on reverse auction strategy (which I cannot find now and was not developed by us). Some may be industry specific but give very good placeholders for the things that both the buyer and supplier should be considering to make a lasting, mutually beneficial partnership.
According to a recent article in Purchasing, suppliers who stand out are those willing to act as partners and that when you find them you should foster the relationship by communicating with them openly – early and often.
Consider using supplier forums to explain to suppliers what it takes for you to consider them best in class and the criteria you will use to measure them by. Explain your marketing dynamics, what you are doing, where you are going, why quality is critical, and what you see a supplier’s role as. If a supplier does not understand what it takes to be best in class, how can you expect the supplier to reach that level.
In today’s marketplace, where assurance of supply, quality, and regulatory compliance and service is often more important than cost, good supplier performance is critical. But best-in-class is difficult to achieve, and integration is critical.
The article offered three tips for buyers that are useful:
Know exactly what you need from suppliers beyond the actual components or services they provide
Communicate regularly on your vision, the needs within your markets, and your expectations form suppliers
Measure suppliers on their willingness to innovate and to invest in your future as well as their own
And I would offer one more:
Start the process in your eSourcing event … not after making the award
![[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)
