In fiction, Orcs are generally described as a brutish, aggressive, ugly, filthy, repulsive malevolent race of corrupted monsters, embodying the “hell-devil” (orc-néas) of Old English literature. Ever since Tolkien popularized them in his Middle Earth as the servants of Mordor, pretty much every work of fiction has described them the same way. Even though Tolkien himself said they understood morality, they tended to only apply it to themselves as they saw fit in their constant state of corruption, a theme that is echoed to this day even in Dungeons and Dragons and Warcraft (which are the fictional works most of today’s generation will associate Ocs with). While some may strive to be moral and better than others of their kind, they still remain warlike and barbaric by our civilized measurements.

As a result, to be ORCish is to be brutish, aggressive, and even repulsive in one’s actions and to be ORCestrative is to organize things in a way that is forceful, ugly, and impure.

Which precisely describes the majority of today’s platforms attempting to unify the Procurement application space for you.

Today’s ORCestration platforms are:

–> Heavy vs. Light
They add yet another bulky system to your stack that takes months to implement, must be constantly maintained, comes with its own data store and rules engine, requires its own user licenses and management, and exacerbates the app proliferation problem you’re trying to solve with yet another app.

–> Costly vs. Cheap
Many of these platforms charge on a per user basis, with fees that can easily be $250/user/year or more JUST for basic intake. If everyone in a large organization needs their own user license, which is, FYI, the only way to achieve true intake and enterprise wide orchestration, an average large organization will be spending 1.25 Million a year for what is essentially Middleware 3.0 with Intake! It might be saving you a few Procurement or ERP licenses, but, as all the fake Christians like to say, you’re just taking money from Peter to pay Paul. Good job!

–> Rigid vs. Flexible
Most of these platforms are very rigid in terms of workflow, configuration, intake process, UI configuration, integration options, etc. Most of them only permit certain actions (intake, process reporting, etc.) to be initiated through the platform. Instead of increasing organizational flexibility, you limit it.

–> Closed vs. Open
Some of these platforms are so rigid (and inflexible) that they won’t even allow partners to do new application integrations because if it’s not done just right, it could all crumble like a house of cards. Classically, middleware was supposed to open up opportunities, not close them down!

–> Batch vs. Real-Time
In most of these platforms, data transfers between the platform and the apps are typically done on a batch schedule and if you need data in an app right away, you have to a manual push-pull. Heck, even classical RPA works better!

–> Routing vs. Execution
All the majority of these platforms do is route requests and data packets from one application to another, requiring a (moderate to large) number of third party applications to do anything at all. You could replace their core function with a last generation workflow engine at a fraction of the cost without sacrificing that much actual functionality!

–> EDI/API vs. BlockChain
Not only is most data shared in batch after being routed using traditional workflow, but it can only be accepted, processed, and routed if it is shared in a classical data exchange format. Forget about integrating it with any modern systems that use blockchain for traceability or e-payments. Just Fuhgeddaboudit.

–> Single vs. Multi-Protocol
Not only are the majority of these platforms limited to classic EDI/APIs for data interchange, but they tend to run off of a single protocol for network and stack integration. This not only limits them to one stack, but prevents them from being forward-compatible with next generation technology that will need to support multiple stacks (LAMP, MEAN, MERN, Django, etc.), multiple classic protocols (including HTTPS, DHCP, ICMP, SNMP, etc.); specialized protocols like BGP and OSPF; and emerging protocols like MCP.

–> Departmental vs. Organizational
Today’s platforms are being sold as the answer to your Procurement needs by providing you with an interface to all of your Procurement systems — that have already been integrated. But here’s the problem — just integrating your Procurement systems doesn’t meet all your needs! The inventory is in the inventory management system, the lead time in the logistics system, and the forecast in the demand planning system, and these are all part of the supply chain systems. All today’s platforms do is force your existing best of breed applications into a hodge-podge frankensuite. You might as well stick with a mega source-to-pay suite and buy a license for everyone in the organization, especially since some of them were built with intake in-mind (as long as you buy a license for every organizational user).

–> Insecure vs. Security-Aware
Of course the platform comes with its own security, on its SOC2 certified servers, with a secure log-in for every user, but that’s the only security it recognizes. It doesn’t recognize the security of any of the applications that are integrated, beyond the API access key. This means that all of the data available to the platform through the key is available to all of the users of the platform, whether or not they should have access to that data, unless the security policies are replicated in the platform.

–> Rule-Based vs. Policy Aware
Not only do each of the connected applications have their own security protocols for data access, but their own policies for compliance. With regards to some data, such as third party personnel profiles or employee communications, not only is the data restricted to certain people, but they must have reasonable cause to view it, assert that cause, and possibly log the proof of that reasonable cause. Also, some pricing data must be restricted to authorized parties to prevent unauthorized disclosure to competitors, etc. The majority of these platforms can’t even implement basic policies yet alone enforce (compliance) policies in the apps they integrate.

–> Autonomous vs. Collaborative
While all of the applications are integrated to the fancy middleware, they still all function autonomous, usually unaware what other platforms are connected, who needs to use and is using the data and outputs of the platform, and where the inputs come from. All they know is that some piece of mysterious middleware shoves data in, executes API calls, and pulls data out. They don’t know where it’s going, how many copies are being made, and how, and even if, those copies are being maintained. The autonomous aspect of each connected application amplifies the data nightmare of the Procurement organization as well as the readiness for next generation Procurement.

–> Brittle vs. Resilient
Most of these platforms are constructed like traditional SaaS apps and have al the same weaknesses. When they go down, they go down, and so do all their connections. Like the One Ring, they are invincible until the One Ping overloads the stack and they come crashing down.

–> Function vs. Process (Focus)
Business run on processes, but these ORCestration platforms still focus on pushing data into, executing through API, and pulling data from functions. The better platforms support end to end Procurement functions, but they are still only functions, because the whole point of Procurement is to support the organization, which means that the process goes beyond the four walls of Procurement. They need to elevate the functions in the apps they connect into process flows, but they’re not doing that.

–> Task vs. Exception (Orientation)
The whole point of software is automation and freeing the user from tactical data processing and thunking that computers are great at so they can do the more strategic and relational work that computers are poor at and can’t do at all! Considering automation in these platforms requires users to manually define workflows, including workflows for exceptions, one by one, they don’t do a very good job of empowering the user.

Today’s ORCestration platforms are the engineering equivalent of trying to fix a break in a line with spit, glue, and duct tape. It might work for a bit, but it’s not going to take much force for the “fix” to fall apart!