It’s multi-state, curved, and chaotic.
You need fuzzy math, fractal geometry, and non-linear differential equations to describe it.
Similarly, the supply chain world we built is not a predictable single source flatland (as the work of Edwin Abott Abott in 1884 should have made clear to you).
You need multi-state logic, multiple (supply) chains and multiple methods for managing them.
And these DO NOT fit into a 2 x 2 grid! It’s this ongoing lie that ultimately leads to failure and organizations bringing in one consultancy* after another, and one platform after another, in an attempt to fix problems which never go away.
Every distinct dimension that needs to be considered in classification and decision making is a distinct dimension that needs to be taken account in any methodology or “map” presented to you (and multiplies the number of “buckets” you need for classification). So if you have three dimensions, you need at least 2 * 2 * 2 = 8 buckets in your classification scheme (as you will have at least 2 values per dimension you differentiate on, and that’s assuming each dimension you are differentiating on is a binary decision — if it were ternary, e.g you were classifying each dimension on high, medium, low or red, yellow, green, then you would have 3 * 3 * 3 = 27 buckets).
That’s why every single analyst quadrant map that attempts to assess a vendor, product, or service on more than 2 dimensions is an ultimate failure. (That’s why SolutionMap works — it’s just tech vs customer sentiment, not innovation, service, tech, market fit, market strategy, product strategy, industry strategy, geographic strategy, product viability, pricing, track record, execution, operations, and customer experience randomly squished into two meaningless composite values using absurd average weightings that are equivalent to taking the average weight of an apple, BMX bike, and a cruise ship.)
Mathematically, this would require a 14-D hypercube with 16,384 sub-cubes. And that’s why you don’t measure everything, only what counts! But try as you might, you usually going to end up with at least 3 independent dimensions that are critical to any problem you work on. But that’s not a bad thing! [Remember, the 3-sided triangle is the most stable shape with area in flatland (where analysts and consultants still love to live in to this day), and the 4-sided tetrahedron (pyramid) you can make from 4 triangles in 3-D is one of the most fundamentally stable shapes there is (and atomic bonding proves this).]
Since, when it comes to Procurement, the 3 most critical dimensions are complexity, risk, and organizational impact of what you’re buying, proper Procurement is dictated by a pocket cube. The Busch-Lamoureux Exact Purchasing pocket cube to be precise.
So if anyone else claims their updated Kraljic matrix will work for you, just shut the door. Don’t bother arguing. If they won’t accept real-world reality, you won’t get a real-world solution. Find someone who understands the complexity and can build you a platform to address it, with as much automation as can be brought to bare. (And quite a bit can be brought to bear, as per our series on operationalizing the pocket cube.) That’s how you will succeed. The old fashioned way — define the problem, use Human Intelligence (HI) to address the problem, and design processes and systems to execute the solution as efficiently as possible. The fundamentals don’t change, and anyone who says otherwise is a scam artist trying to sell you (silicon) snake oil. Don’t buy it.
* Now big consultancies won’t tell you this because if you get it right the first time, they can’t continue to sell you consulting hours, which is their ultimate goal.