Add commentJune 24th, 2010Paladin Associates - Tom Thompson
A category of spend with the highest probability of achieving savings is Telecommunications. The primary reason is that individuals managing Telecom expenditures are usually technical specialists without experience in strategic sourcing or possessing an intimate knowledge of telecommunications billing practices.
Effectively managing wireless expenditures can be the most daunting. Wireless Services have the following characteristics:
• Each voice/data line plan has a separate individual 1, 2 or 3 year expiration date
• Without proper management tools, unchecked user behavior will quickly erode anticipated savings
• Unlike most wireline carriers (i.e., ATT, Sprint, Verizon), which frequently demonstrate very competitive pricing, most wireless carrier’s pricing tends to be similar in unit costs, equipment provided and associated discounts
• Porting wireless voice and data services between carriers can be challenging
• It is very difficult to properly manage plans and optimize services as carriers typically provide minimal useful and actionable billing information
The following is often true for Wireless Services:
• Inefficient usage plans caused by explosive growth
• Significant payments for lines with little or no use
• Overpayments for excess capacity
• Decentralized ordering and billing
• Billing errors – rates are variable and negotiable, details are overwhelming
• Corporate users create churn when comparing existing business services to the consumer “deal of the day”
Solutions include:
• “Right-sizing” plans based on accurate organization needs and usage patterns, revised regularly
• Improved contracting: negotiating, implementing and monitoring a master contract that takes into account the service requirements across all facilities
• Adjustable rate contracts based on continuously updated industry price benchmarks
• Ongoing audits of telecom billing at the line-item level
• Developing a cogent wireless policy with approval processes
• Consolidating from multiple to no more than two suppliers; better discounts
• Consideration of resellers or consortium solutions
How do I work with the Service Provider? Should I interview the offshore resources? What are SLAs? What can I do to improve quality? These are questions we hear repeatedly from our customers. In response, we’ve developed a series of workshops to address these pressing needs. The content is structured to be delivered in ½ day to 2-day highly-interactive sessions, which allows organizations to truly understand and implement the concepts. We’ve conducted these with a number of large IT organizations on a variety of topics, including:
Managing in an Outsourced Environment (ADM Operational Management) – Organizations struggle with the transition from a staff augmentation model to a managed service model. Internal employees often have new roles and must work with Service Providers using contractual constructs such as defined pricing units and Service Level Agreements. This 1- to 2 -day course provides practical guidance on day-to-day management in an outsourced environment. It breaks down many of the contractual elements into easy-to-understand tools that front-line managers can use to measure and incent Service Provider behavior and to foster a healthy Service Provider relationship that achieves the original sourcing goals. Many of the concepts are based on the book I wrote with Jim Hussey, Managing Global Development Risk, which was no. 1 in the outsourcing category on Amazon.com last year.
Creating an Investment Mindset – IT Governance and Demand Management are two of the hottest topics in the industry but are also two of the hardest strategies to implement within an organization. This 1-day workshop focuses on IT decision rights and a practical approach to IT Demand Management focused on prioritizing projects and aligning them with business needs. The workshop also highlights the advantages of agile development in an offshore delivery model to develop a flexible team that can rapidly respond to changing business needs.
Establishing a Testing Center of Excellence or Managed Test Factory – Focused testing via a COE is quickly becoming one of the best ways to improve software quality. Service Providers are creating a potpourri of offerings to capture a slice of this rapidly growing market. This ½-day course provides an overview of the market with an operational focus on the key concepts and the necessary steps to establishing and managing your own Testing COE or Managed Test Factory.
Dedicated time with industry experts in a ½ day to 2-day workshop is a great way to accelerate your organization’s understanding of emerging sourcing trends and strategies.
Incumbent and new suppliers can sometimes be reluctant with a reverse auction. The most important advice to remember when dealing with these types of supplier situations is: communicate, communicate, and communicate.
This point cannot be stressed enough. Many feel that by utilizing an online sourcing tool, all communication only takes place electronically. The e-Sourcing tool should facilitate communication, not replace it. It is important to still maintain professional relationships with your bidders and stakeholders through one-on-one meetings or phone conversations. Before initiating any online sourcing initiative, suppliers should be notified about what they will be receiving and what to do with that information. This also gives you the opportunity to minimize any fears and preconceived notions they may have about online sourcing technologies. The Sourcing Team should also properly monitor suppliers’ progress on different tasks set out for them to do, and follow up with a phone call whenever they are not being responsive. This will ensure maximum understanding and participation from suppliers.
Here are some key times that you should communicate with your suppliers.
• before an invitation to participate in an auction, notify them of the upcoming event
• after the invitation is sent, confirming the supplier received it and asking if they have any questions
• when there are dramatic changes to the RFQ including new deadlines, dates or specifications
• 24 hours prior to the auction to verify participation and answer any open questions
• during the auction if there are noticeable issues with a supplier (like not logging in, logging off too soon)
• after the auction to communicate the award decision
Clarity and communication are keys to not only a successful auction, but to maintaining strong relationships with potential suppliers who don’t win.
Simple steps like these will drastically reduce the risk of event day issues and will keep suppliers interested in your business later, as they will feel the process was fairly managed.
Add commentMay 27th, 2010Paladin Associates - Tom Thompson
Telecom is a large, untapped spend category many companies find challenging when assessing cost-saving opportunities. Where to begin?
Telecom suppliers have a distinct advantage over vendors in many other industries — management’s reluctance to jeopardize a business’s networking infrastructure design in order to transition to an alternative supplier.
As a result:
Incumbent suppliers tend to be much less flexible in reacting to marketplace pricing or other business requirements.
The Sourcing organization has multiple obstacles to overcome – the incumbent supplier and the multiple internal organizations where ownership of telecom services is often fractured between Sourcing, IT, Telecom and Facilities.
A significant part of telecom expenditures are for Local Exchange Services** (see definition) which present unique difficulties and challenges to the task of finding cost savings:
There are at least 50 individual state tariffs applicable to the same type of services.
Companies have little or no access to actual published rates which change periodically.
If services are not centrally managed there is no payment history available.
Invoicing tends to be on paper and approved for payment locally with minimal or no central review.
Discounts are minimal.
However savings from 13% – 20% can be achieved if you know where to look.
In addition, the following benefits can be applicable to Local Exchange Services:
Website portal access for account management and on-line tracking of new orders, repair requests, etc.
Billing designed to match customer accounting requirements (GL codes, departments, regions, cost centers).
No cutovers (overlapping services) with the LEC for analog services; simply a billing change.
**Local Exchange Services (LEC) Definition: A company providing local telephone service.
The incumbent Local Exchange Company (ILEC) is the local telephony company (telco) in place prior to deregulation, after which one or more competitive LECs (CLECs) were introduced.
LEC companies are also sometimes referred to as “telcos.” A “local exchange” is the local “central office” of an LEC. Lines from homes and businesses terminate at a local exchange.
Local exchanges connect to other local exchanges within a local access and transport area (LATA) or to interexchange carriers (IXCs) such as long-distance carriers AT&T, MCI, and Sprint.
Paladin Associates is a sourcing cost reduction company with a unique understanding of opportunities to reduce costs in Telecom spend categories.
UNSPSC coding is great for numerous industries, but it seems that there is a void in the coding structure when it comes to large financial institutions. I recently held discussions with several directors of sourcing from large insurance and finance companies while speaking about spend analysis. In each conversation it has come to light that the coding is great for a lot of commodities, but doesn’t address the unique services aspect of their spend.
So how do they accurately classify their spend when UNSPSC isn’t adequate? As all animals do in the world, they adapt and evolve out of necessity. They have created a hybrid of UNSPSC that includes the strong elements of what UNSPSC coding classifies well and included additional coding that relates specifically to their unique services spend.
UNSPSC coding is a strong coding system. However, companies should not be afraid to add to coding structures to meet their needs. Visibility into your spend is only as good as a desired taxonomy’s ability to accurately reflect the nature of your data.
A strong Spend Analysis solution will be able to handle not only classifying to UNSPSC, but also any internal structure as well. A spend analysis solution should be as flexible and scalable as the company it’s doing the work for.
The past couple of years have been an exciting time for CIOs needing scalable IT platforms that are cost-effective and support rigorous security standards. In addition to cloud computing, a currently less-publicized technology called “VDI” is gaining momentum and credibility for those who need similar attributes with added benefits. The server-centric VDI model, which borrows from the traditional thin-client model, can be a great alternative for organizations that want to maintain control of their applications and data in-house, uphold stringent control of operational standards and reduce support costs.
VDI means “virtual desktop infrastructure.” Quite simply, it takes the user’s desktop and moves it into the data center. When done right, resources become better utilized, applications are managed efficiently, and data never leaves the friendly confines of the data center.
First generation virtual desktop solutions were designed to serve up a basic virtual desktop running Microsoft Office and client/server or Web apps, and they did a great job at that. In today’s computing environment, many companies are concerned with the sometimes delicate balance of cost versus security. Besides the obvious cost consciousness brought about by the weak economy, another less-common cost consideration is what I’m calling the “experience” value – the relative ease-of-use of a given solution for a typical end-user. We want this value to be high, indicating a highly usable system. Then there’s the security side of the equation.
I believe that the VDI desktop solution can help organizations 1) keep costs down, 2) maximize the “client experience” value; and 3) maintain data security. VDI can help lower costs by reducing management, administrative, and resource overhead, while at the same time increasing the user’s experience and securing data inside the data center.
Desktop virtualization depends on where the virtualization is taking place (i.e., implemented), either at the host (i.e., data center) via one single image being presented to all users (a.k.a. “thin client”), or at the host serving up multiple images to users or the client workstation running multiple images.
VDI is a “younger” technology that we’re seeing implemented by some major vendors in the past two years. HP, IBM, MS, VMware, Citrix, SUN and various boutique service providers have been increasingly getting into this space. Along the spectrum of virtualized desktop implementations, there have been many successful implementations worldwide such as Sparkassen, the savings banks’ financial group in Germany, which has deployed more than 100,000 thin clients using VDI.
VDI is a proven technology and has reached a maturity level that gives buyers with a certain set of requirements many viable choices. But you don’t want to virtualize without a clear understanding of your current and desired states.
Recently, I’ve had numerous conversations with prospects and current clients where the conversation turned to a familiar topic: What are the key selling points to increase use and adoption into business units who are not using eSourcing effectively?
Here are a few short bullets to provide you with a strong business case. These are items that we continue see that sell eSourcing internally as an enterprise solution.
Ability to run reports at a divisional level, as well as the parent company, through the use of project classifications.
By inviting a divisional lead to each sourcing project, or by setting a divisional lead up as a domain administrator, divisions can share upcoming sourcing projects with the ability to aggregate / leverage spend when appropriate.
Each division can have representation to view and score RFPs for a group decision
Divisions have the ability to create customized co-brands all pointing to a single domain. This allow each group to have a their own logo for suppliers but all data is sharing a single instance to manage all project data and reporting.
Ability to centralize a supplier database for all divisions so that they can share supplier information leveraging relationships and low cost vendors.
Standardize supplier communications through email templates, RFP structure, Terms & Conditions documents as well, as what information is collected from suppliers for each sourcing project.
Ensuring corporate compliance is being met through reporting an auditing of projects.
eSourcing can fundamentally improve your process, efficiency and coordination as a team. These in particular would be classified as the third tenant of eSourcing benefits – knowledge transfer and collaboration.
Winning bidders in auctions often experience buyer’s remorse, a gnawing sense that they have paid too much for something that they don’t need and perhaps no longer want. Something similar can happen in reverse when a client selects the cheapest service provider in a competitive tender for outsourced services. For example, in today’s tough conditions, many clients are anxious to strike deals that shift fixed components of their cost base onto the provider. But this can exert colossal pressures on the provider’s operating model if the services are not fairly priced and consumption falls.
Buyers typically – and often with justification – worry that the deal will come to strongly favour the provider. Here are the TPI Top 5 reasons why the opposite might be the case:
1. The service provider doesn’t understand the requirement. Buyer’s remorse is often accompanied by a feeling of embarrassment where the buyer thinks, “the other bidders must know something I don’t.” Likewise, a suspiciously low bid might indicate the provider misunderstood the scope of services or the level to which they were to be performed. Service levels can be a culprit here, as small changes in requirements can result in step-changes in cost.
2. The provider underestimates the transition and transformation effort. This is a subset of the first category, but worth mentioning separately because it is so common. Many service providers understand their own cost bases well, yet believe their products, systems and processes to be broadly standardized when, in fact, significant effort is required to adapt them to client processes and systems.
3. The provider is “buying the business.” A service provider might offer an attractive price in order to acquire a capability and client base in an attractive business area. This is rarely to both parties’ advantage and often ends badly if the provider’s expansion plans don’t result in the expected revenues. Similarly, changes in the provider’s management or business direction (or both) will lead to suboptimal behaviours that are typically focused on the provider’s profit and loss rather than service to the client.
4. The provider relies on leveraging the transferred assets. Perhaps the provider wants to subsidize the cost of, say, a data centre in anticipation of winning additional business that can be serviced from the same location. As above, this can benefit both parties, particularly if both recognise it as a fundamental part of the solution. The risk in this approach, however, can be costly if the new business doesn’t materialise or is delayed, or it if can only be won if the pricing assumes yet more growth.
5. Corporate activity. A client was able to extract a low bid from a service provider who had already announced to the market a strategy dependent on winning the business. As with any price reduction that is unrelated to a corresponding reduction in cost, clients should be wary of such an approach, as the provider’s rationale will soon be forgotten once the margins are being reported.
The lowest bid can easily turn out to be the most expensive. At best, the relationship will be strained and the service provider will try to recover costs through a self-serving reading of the contractual obligations; at worst the client might find itself depending on a bankrupt provider.
I would like spend some time to talk about what’s new in spend analysis technology and the benefits its providing to the market in terms of efficiency, visibility and speed to ROI.
Data Extraction and Importation
The biggest undertaking with older database driven technology is the time it takes IT to map corporate spend data to required predefined templates which allows the data to be imported by a spend analysis tool.
The new generation of data driven technology utilizes metadata to automate how spend data is organized. This architecture requires a minimal amount IT resources and can simple accept an export of data that includes the column header.
Take the example of 4 source systems with the old technology. It I would take 1 day of extraction and mapping for each source file. That is a total of 4 days. With the new technology it takes a total of 2 hours per source file. So, to start your project you have already saved 3 days in time and can now move on to the next phase in a shorter time frame.
Data Consolidation and Integration
The biggest improvements in this area allow for the data to be assimilated within the tool compared to outside the tool. In addition, the new technology allows for users to create associations across a virtually unlimited number of data field associations. Bottom line IT exports the data files and they get directly imported into the spend analysis tool and the data associations
The old technology required different data files to be consolidated and normalized outside the tool prior to the file being imported. This was usually done by IT and was a costly and timely effort.
Again taking the example above with 4 source systems, it would take a total of 8 days to extract, map and load the data files. The new technology shrinks that time to 3 days. Now in our example we have already accelerated our project by and ROI by 8 days.
Cleansing and Categorization
This area is where the ability to provide higher classification rates in greater detail has provided huge advancements in spend analysis. The new tools have evolved to include thousands and thousands of structured rules and cleansing routines. These routines and rules continue to evolve and grow with every project that is created. These improvements make the entire process repeatable and therefore scalable. As a result, process time is compressed and support costs are dramatically lowered.
Reporting and Analysis
The new reporting tools are built with the end user in mind. Faster access to information they need with drill down capability. Standard ad-hoc reports and the ability to create custom reports at will. The benefits of the new reporting are simple: self sufficiency, ease of use and faster analysis for projects and business decisions.
In end, spend analysis is about visibility to harness savings and speed to ROI. The new technology condenses the project time frame dramatically, increases classification accuracy and provides a fast self sufficient reporting tool. For more information about this topic, please download the wiki white paper located on the side bar of this blog site.
In the world of Spend Data Management and Spend Analytics, not much new technology has come forth over the past 5 years, until now. We have been stuck with ETL’s requiring structured data templates, fixed databases, reporting cubes, and manual data classification to name a few. Each of these technologies had less-than-desired automation and difficulties, or “choke” points, along the Spend Analysis process of collecting data, integrating it, cleansing it, classifying it, and analyzing/reporting on it for company Spend insights and cost savings opportunities. The new technology is known as “Dynamic Database” technology, and it is an advanced data processing capability perfect for Spend Analysis, Spend Management, and Category Management.
Dynamic database technology can quickly become a very technical discussion, and although it is revolutionary, it is not widely known beyond database guru’s, such as Oracle engineers. It is not like you start out with an existing car with no motor and customize the engine (an existing technology and tailor it). Everything about a dynamic database is setup for a specific purpose… you guessed it… “dynamically”. Applying it to the world of Spend Analysis, with real world examples, can help explain how it has opened up new capabilities in Spend Analysis not previously available with older technologies:
Examples and expanded capabilities of dynamic database technology across the Spend Analysis process:
Data Collection. Each companies specific data and business of sourcing, and we mean everything, can be accommodated, including global data in foreign languages. The data capture process is dynamic, meaning any data can be collected in any format easily. No formatted extracts are required.
Data Validation, Integration, and Cleansing. How data is validated…is dynamic, as data can now be integrated in ways it has never been integrated before, and cleansed more thoroughly across the additional relationships that are created.
Data Classification. How that data is classified…is dynamic, so multiple taxonomies can be supported independently AND related to each other. The rules that operate on the data are dynamic, and can be applied leveraging years of project and industry experience, as well as specific company business anomalies.
Analysis and Reporting. How data is reported…is dynamic, as all data is in memory and many core views and metrics across the customer data can now be rendered. Virtually any data collected can be reported. Strategic Sourcing and Category Management programs can be mirrored and monitored over time (with easy data refresh). Any change in business requirements and analysis needs can be accommodated by quickly collecting pertinent data and making simple reporting adjustments.
Application Interface. What really advances dynamic database technology is controlling all data and the related QA processes through a Spend Analysis application interface, making it flexible and easy to use.
Dynamic database technology, combined with a robust application interface for data collection, cleansing, classification, and reporting, is very unique and very powerful for Spend Analysis. It is a huge differentiation and advancement from previous methods and technologies. It truly raises the bar regarding what companies can now do to enhance Spend visibility, find new cost savings, and manage those savings.
An article in the Wallstreet Journal provides a wonderful example of how implemented best practices and process improvement programs like Six Sigma can go astray after experts move to other projects, Managers relax accountability and excitement fades. The cartoon depicted below by Leif Parsons, gives the perfect illustration of what happens in the progression of these engagements.
The article reveals how at one aerospace company this implementation was executed then returned to the old poor practices.
The first step, as with any improvement program like AA or Six Sigma, is admitting and identify that you have a problem.
In the Aerospace company example, the second step was to bring in help by utilizing an expert in Six Sigma that energized the staff and helped them to understand where they needed to improve. They provided accountability in assigning tasks to these improvements. Employees embraced the new processes and implemented them. At first it slowed productivity, but quickly, as they became more accustomed to the new methods, productivity returned to normal levels. Once the goals of a department were reached, they were communicated with the company as a whole. This empowered the employees and gave them ownership of the project and their achievements. They are also rewarded with other rewards such as, restaurant gift cards, bonuses and exposure through notices in corporate newsletters.
After goals of improvement had been reached in one department, the expert and Managers would move their attention to another project or department assuming the success would sustain itself without continued support. This is where accountability loosens and enthusiasm for the process starts to revert to old practices. You can see this progression in the cartoon.
If you are one of these companies struggling to understand why these programs aren’t continuing to demonstrate results, ask yourself a simple question….What accountability and continued support am I providing my teams so they don’t revert? Think outside the box. You don’t need an expert to solve this problem. You need an expert to identify and fix it originally. The same goes for eSourcing technology deployments. Vendors can diagnose the opportunity and implement the technology properly, but sustainability needs to constantly be addressed with either internal or external resources.
Purchasing Magazine ran a listing of vendors that offer spend analysis solutions, available via this link. It must be a tall order for companies to accurately assess and evaluate this technology solution, as I would only consider 11 of the 17 to be spend analysis tools. Some of those 11, I gave the benefit of the doubt because I do not know of a single time we have competed against them, nor do I know of any companies using the technology for spend visibility needs (eg, US Bank).
In fact, there only 7 on the list that I know we have competed against. Hence, to me this list just further validates that quality Spend Management vendor information simply does not exist, and is the reason why practitioners often are forced to rely on Analysts. Unfortunately, this method of qualification is hardly better, as I have previously proclaimed (accurately, I might add).
Personally, I think this excerpt of definition from Wikipedia, hits it on the head: A disadvantage of dead reckoning is that since new positions are calculated solely from previous positions, the errors of the process are cumulative, so the error in the position fix grows with time. In a nutshell, unless you really know what you are doing and have a lot of time, the informational errors will compound and your decision will be made without modern day navigational equipment that keeps you on course.
So, if there are no resources that can accurately maintain an unbiased vendor ranking system, what is a buyer to do?
For starters, do your research from at least 3, preferably 5 resources. This would include reading some analyst market reports, but NEVER just one. You should also thoroughly digest vendor websites and document features and benefits, to make sure they are each saying enough of the right things for consistency. Next, speak to your colleagues that have used SA tools, or been on evaluation teams at other companies. They can help you really reduce the noise. Lastly, be ready to concentrate during a minimum of 5 product demos, maybe more. If you are truly committed to choosing a partner and awarding the business, it is likely the finalists will give you access to their tool with a custom data set from your side.
Choosing the right tool for spend visibility is hard enough, be sure Garmin is turned on.
Last month we had a major release for our clients, with the long awaited functionality for supplier information management, or whatever terminology kids use these days for vendor data management. As you can read in the press release, our COO was quite pleased. In fact, we had to edit his exact quote to be less enthusiastic.
Then again, why wouldn’t we be excited? Our integrated application can now give users the ability the design custom supplier portals with supplier type profiles and n-tier level classification. In the first month, a large number of clients have already begun tracking supplier data for reporting and risk assessments. Our next release will build in scorecarding data to enhance the supplier data content with the official release of a stand alone product – SmartSupplier.
Simple usages, such as maintaining supplier diversity information and sharing that information across the enterprise, are now part of our standard deployment. The maturation of the eSourcing solution marketplace continues to evolve and deliver value to practitioners.
A client asked me today if it is more usual for customer payments to be in advance or in arrears in Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) license agreements. It is a great question as this is a common point raised in licensing agreement negotiations.
The nature of a SaaS law license is that it is a subscription transaction. There is a guaranteed term with a right to some use of the technology. What makes SaaS transactions unique is the collaborative support services that support the license. Some attorneys want to treat these transactions as service engagements rather than software licensing – but true to the heart of any SaaS transaction, it is a license to use the technology. There is scope of use, restrictions on use, user seats, types of seats, IP restrictions and other common licensing terms.
This is key when chosing a pricing model as it should be priced as a software license (which requires the water to be turned on) rather than a services engagement (which requires delivery and acceptance). Regarding the guaranteed term, most SaaS licenses are either on-demand (client pays as they use) or term subscriptions (e.g., monthly or annual rates regardless of amount of use). For the on-demand licenses, payment terms are easy – they pay as they go.
For the installment payments, payment terms should be set based on the nature of the SaaS tool itself. If the payment is based on some variable component, such as a savings level acheived through the technology, it should be in arrears. If it is a structured payment schedule, it might as well be in advance.
Lawson, CEO Harry Debes was recently interviewed by ZDNet and had some fun things to say about the SaaS industry. Of course, this is Lawson, the ERP provider with no SaaS offering. Some of the highlights were quoted as:
“People will realize the hype about SaaS companies has been overblown within the next two years,” he said. “An industry has to have more than just one poster child to overhaul the system. One day Salesforce.com will not deliver its growth projections, and its stock price will tumble in a big hurry. Then, the rest of the [SaaS] industry will collapse.”
Also, of note:
Won’t people avoid the mistakes of “previous” SaaS incarnations, as you mentioned?
People are stupid. History has shown it repeats itself, and people make the same mistakes.
“Collapse” and “stupid” are pretty big words that could easily boomerang on him, especially in an interview where he basically says that the installed model is great because it traps the customer with high switching costs. Further, the assumption that Salesforce will miss an earnings call, which is then the trigger for a cataclysmic chain reaction, is laughable. Even if some of the biggest SaaS application providers do implode, there are thousands of companies doing well and proving the business case, day after day.
This interview was non sense, inconsistent, contradictory and baseless. I think I can pretty much leave it, at that.
![[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)
