Author Archives: thedoctor

Strategic Sourcing & Procurement for Technology Cost Optimization

Given that we recently published a piece noting that Roughly Half a Trillion Dollars Will Be Wasted on SaaS Spend This Year and up to One Trillion Dollars on IT Services, it’s obvious that one has to be very careful with technology acquisition as it is very easy to overspend on the license and the implementation for something that doesn’t even solve your problem.

As a result, you need to be very strategic about it. While you certainly can’t put the majority of your technology acquisitions (which can be 6, 7, and even 8 figures) up for auction (as products are never truly apples to apples to apples), you definitely have to be strategic about it. As a result, you should be doing multi-round RFPs and then awarding to the vendor who brings you the best overall value for the term you want to commit to, once all things are considered.

But these have to be well thought out … you need to make sure that you are only inviting providers that are likely to meet 100% of your must haves, 80% of your should haves, and 60% of your nice to haves (and, moreover, that you have really separated out absolute vs highly desired vs wanted but not needed because the more you insist on, especially when it’s not necessary, the shallower the vendor pool, and the more you are going to end up paying*).

To do this, as the article notes, you have to know what processes you need to support, what improvements you are expecting, what measurements you need the platform to take, and what business objectives it needs to support. Then you need to align your go-to-market sourcing/procurement strategy with those objectives and make sure the RFP covers all the core requirements (without asking 100 unnecessary questions about features you’ll never actually use in practice).

You also need to know what quantifiable benefits the platform should deliver, both in terms in tactical work(force) reduction (as the tech you acquire should be good at thunking), and the value that will be obtained from the strategic enablement (in terms of analysis, intelligence gathering, guided events, etc.) the platform should deliver. If it is a P2P platform, how much invoice processing is it going to automate, and, based on that, how much is it going to reduce your average invoice processing cost? If it’s a sourcing platform, how much more spend will you be able to source (without increasing person-power) and what is a reasonable savings percentage to expect on that? Understand the value before you go to market.

Then you need to understand how much support and help you need from the vendor. If you just want a platform that does a function, then you just need to know the vendor can support the platform in supporting that function. But if you need help in process transformation or optimization, customized development or third party tool integration for advanced/custom processes, etc. you need a vendor that cannot only provide services, but also be a strategic provider for you as well.

And so on. For more insights, we suggest you check out a recent article by Alix Partners on Strategic Sourcing and Procurement for Technology Cost Optimisation. It has a lot of great advice for those starting their strategic procurement technology journey.

*Just remember, if you’re a mid-market, and you’re flexible (i.e. define what a module needs to accomplish for you vs. a highly specific process) you can get your absolute functionality and most of your desired functionality for 120K in annual SaaS license fees, excluding data feeds and services. If you’re not flexible, or not really strict in really separating out absolute vs strongly desired vs nice-to-have, you can easily be paying four times that.

Also remember, if you’re enterprise, your absolutes and strongly desired are much more extensive, typically require a lot more advanced tech (like optimization, predictive analytics, ML/AI, etc.), and licenses fees alone will cost you in the 500K to 1M range annually at a minimum, not counting the 100K to 1M you will need to spend on the implementation, data cleansing and enrichment, integration, training, and real-time data feed access, so it is absolutely vital you get it right!

Commenting on The Prophet‘s 2024 Procurement / Supply Chain HR Advice

Note the Sourcing Innovation Editorial Disclaimers and note this is a very opinionated rant!  Your mileage will vary!  (And not about any firm in particular.)

Don’t be Afraid of Going “In-House” If you Have Tech Expertise

In this recent LinkedIn article, The Prophet notes that, in the past, he’s always recommended a stint in consulting given the presentation and analytical skills it builds where consulting can also imply “outsourcing” or “managed services”. But for 2024 he think[s] the time is right to consider going “in-house” if you’re debating a career change in procurement or supply chain and you have technology skills.

the doctor fully agrees, with a mild caveat. Specifically, “in-house” must also be capable of being interpreted to include new-age niche service providers that, as The Prophet himself pointed out in his 9th Prediction that “SaaS Management Solutions Start to Eat Services Procurement Tech“, we’re going to see new categories of blended consulting/service providers that offer not only consulting but power engagements with in house (SaaS) tech that blends tech, data, and automation in new ways to provide enhanced service packages to clients based on service fees, data fees, platform fees, and consulting fees, depending on the engagement. These plays will need the above above average talent to bring it all together, and could prove to be the most fruitful jobs this talent can get both in terms of compensation (especially if they get a small piece of the company) and job satisfaction (solving problems in less time with more value than any Big X did before).

The Prophet also notes that many consulting orgs are still on hiring freezes or cutbacks and a bunch I know aren’t raising salaries this year and that if you are an expert “grinder” versus someone with deep commercial/sales or product knowledge, you might be better valued in a company in 2024. the doctor agrees.

Moreover, the doctor believes that this will be the year that Big X Consultancies will, in tech, finally be hit with the triple whammy of:

  1. a market unable to afford their (sometimes ridiculously) high rates
    especially relative to the average service they provide (as the market has to accept what we’ve known since The Limits to Growth was published in 1972)
  2. an exacerbated brain drain
    as the companies who let talent slip in favour of DEI quotas recruit good talent back in house (which is easy when talent who went to consultancies sees their salaries freeze & their careers stall)
  3. a dose of reality as the smarter companies see what some of us analysts* have seen for years that when it comes to modern tech or industry leading service offerings, at consultancies that have under-invested in tech, you have one group leader who is stellar (and worth whatever the firm charges), two or three handpicked recruits that are above average (and worth double or triple their market value because you can’t get that talent easy), and then thirty to forty average bench warmers fresh out of school who aren’t capable of doing anything original due to lack of real world experience and can only follow the playbook written years ago by the group leader and only updated sparingly as the handpicked recruits have time.

Why?  Because the best consultancies, mid-market and Big X alike, will do something about it  (and already are — either acquiring companies to get pools of talent, focusing more on training the talent they have, or forcing team leaders to do more mentorship of the junior staff to raise them up), and bring the same value to tech that they bring to other areas.  (See when should you use Big X?)

If you don’t believe the doctor when he says that the big consultancies are much shorter on the above average tech talent they claim to provide you, then ask yourself this:

How are Big X and Mid-Sized consultancies supposed to hire talent during tech booms when some tech companies will pay 250K+ for an intermediate developer (which is twice the average average salary in some well educated markets, and at least 2/3 more than the average salary#) and 500K+ for a superstar?

When the VC and PE money flows, startups, which are cool and an opportunity to get rich if you ride the next unicorn, are more attractive than starting at the bottom rung of a consultancy. Thus, in these times, especially when the consultancies need bodies for all the implementation projects (because when the economy is pumped up by tech, a lot of companies buy tech), they hire what they can get — which is not the above average talent (of which there isn’t even enough for all the tech companies when you look at the paltry number of STEM graduates each year, the number of those who are actually qualified [which is less and less every year, not only do you have the double whammy of severe grade inflation and below par DEI-agenda admissions that The Prophet pointed out, but also overworked Professors who are forced to grade on a curve] and then calculate the number above average). Some of the “talent” graduating is so bad that you’re lucky if they understand the concept of a boundary condition when coding or calibrating when installing a piece of hardware [but fortunately they don’t end up, or stay in, tech very long — it’s easy to weed these individuals better suited for other careers out fast]. (Remember, the doctor used to be a Professor, keeps in contact with Professors, and the situation gets worse and worse each year. It’s all about maximizing dollars — from out-of-province/state students who’ll pay more, international students who’ll pay way more, and then hitting those quotes for massive DEI-based subsidies. It’s not about admitting, training, and turning out the best and the brightest. Only the rich and the rainbow.)

Now, the doctor should again point out that he’s not totally bashing the Big X and Mid-Sized consultancies — in traditional (management/operational/finance/strategy) consulting domains, many of them are great — and way better than an average company  In fact, he has a whole article on when should you use Big X?. But in tech, you’re often lucky if they’re average.  (Some are way above average, having recently acquired specialist vendors and consultancies in tech, analytics, and/or AI that instantly gave them a pool of world leading experts, while others have more or less ignored modern areas of tech until the AI hype reached full steam and are playing catch up.)  And when it comes to advanced tech, if you’re trying to find a true leader to take on your project, and you don’t know what you’re looking for, your odds are about equal to snake eyes when you roll the bones. (Your cost will be too high and your odds of generating a real return too low unless you first do your homework. You can’t throw an incomplete project request over the wall and hope for a good return from anyone!  This means identifying your needs in detail, reviewing the proposals in detail, and vetting the talent that is proposed.)

* even if many analysts can’t speak the truth because their firm’s success hinges on the success of the vendors who pay for their research, which in turn hinges on the success of the consulting partners they use for implementations …
# even though these same vendors will then wonder why they go bankrupt or have to do massive layoffs in two years

Open Gen-AI Isn’t Just Dumbing Your Business, It’s Killing the Planet!

Open Gen-AI is not just one of the most dangerous technologies we’ve ever invented* (as it lulls the uninformed into a false sense of security who will depend on it to make increasingly more critical decisions that could have increasingly more disastrous consequences), it’s also about to pose the biggest threat to planetary survival!

As it is, an average Data Center requires at least 10X the energy consumption of an average American home per square meter, with Open Gen AI data centers (which require ultra dense servers with cores running flat out all the time) requiring even more energy than that. However, whereas traditional AI models, including traditional Deep Learning Neural Nets which can be optimized post-training to often 10% of their original size using techniques developed by MIT researchers (including those described in this article) are now smaller and more stable than they used to be, these models just keep expanding exponentially in a futile quest to have them do more and now require models thousands of times bigger (and more energy intensive) than traditional models, often to generate output that wouldn’t even net a C grade in a high school class!

Think about that and read this article by Kate Crawford on Nature on how AI’s environmental costs are soaring (which notes that even OpenAI’s CEO has finally admitted that the AI industry is heading towards an energy crisis as there just isn’t enough power to keep up with the exponential energy demands [with ChatGPT already requiring more power than 33,000 average American homes … think about that, if you shut down just TWO Open Gen-AI models, you could power an entire small city]) before needlessly throwing a solution you don’t understand at a problem you don’t even have (when a better process would eliminate that problem and replace it with a smaller, different, problem that traditional technology and a human with just a bit of training could completely solve).

Because Open Gen-AI is just NOT ready for prime time, and just because these companies raised Billions of dollars on false promises that it would be ready years or decades sooner than AI development has traditionally taken, that doesn’t make it our responsibility to adopt the technology before it’s ready.

* And if a man afraid of nothing acknowledges this, we really should listen! (See this article.)

A Truly Great Article on Transforming Legacy Procurement

If you’re a new occasional reader, you might think that one of the doctor‘s primary goals is to just rip big analyst firms and publications apart when they publish ridiculous results (based on ridiculous surveys) or ill-conceived articles with little to no good Procurement content (if we’re lucky), or wrong content (if we’re not) that, as far as the doctor is concerned, would have been just as good if they unleashed an intern with no knowledge of procurement on Chat-GPT (and you all know what the doctor thinks of that!).

However, that’s just because, as Procurement is hitting the limelight (as a result of all the supply chain disasters we’ve been facing that they have been expected to deal with), coverage has increased significantly (to capitalize on the hot topic), and most of it is, frankly, NOT that good. However, every now and again there is a truly tremendous article published under the radar, and when the doctor finds one of those, he’s very happy to bring your attention to it. Especially when it’s written by a practitioner who obviously gets it.

In her article on From Tactical to Strategic: Transforming Legacy Procurement, the author reminds us that the majority of large scale transformations fail, that a major challenge for older companies is that they have no comprehensive view into global spend, that e-Procurement systems offer many fixes, but also that if they are not optimized for your specific business needs, you could be missing out on opportunities for better supplier partnerships and cost leadership.

This does not mean that you should build your own (overly) customized system, or insist that the systems support your current processes (before determining if those processes are better than the processes supported out-of-the-box by the new systems that have been developed based on typical best practices of the industries the vendor serves), but that the solution has to be appropriate to your industry and support some customization where you need it for specific products, services, or processes that make your business unique (but only those — don’t reinvent the wheel already there where you’re the same as everyone else).

The author then goes on to outline a three-phase approach to identifying, selecting, implementing, and, most importantly, maximizing adoption of the platform — which is an ultimate key to success.

the doctor highly recommends you read this article on going From Tactical to Strategic: Transforming Legacy Procurement.

Fraud and Waste are Not the Same Thing — And You Cannot Overcome them Equally

A recent article in BusinessDailyAfrica on how firms can overcome fraud and wastage in technology procurement had some good advice, but it missed some key points, especially since you can’t treat fraud and wastage equally if you want to truly combat fraud and wastage in real time.

The article notes that when it comes to the adoption of new technologies, organizations allocate substantial budgets that provide fertile ground for funds to be siphoned through fraud, which is sort of true, but usually what happens is a plethora of change orders and upsells at multiples of what the organization should be paying, which is not fraud when the vendor delivers, but severe wastage.

A bigger concern is, as the article notes, manipulation of procurement processes encompasses practices such as bid rigging or collusion with service providers, kickbacks and bribery, false invoicing, misrepresenting specifications and capabilities of products and services, channelling payments through shell companies solely to facilitate bribery, conflict of interest, and disguising procurements to bypass processes, which has nothing to do with the tech budget, and which happens whether or not the company implements new tech or not, whether the decisions are ill-considered or not, whether the decisions are rushed or not, etc.

The reality is this: if a company has a lot of money and fraudsters believe it, or its processes, can be exploited for fraud, they’ll try. And while adequate planning, centralization of tech decisions, robust implementation of strategies, and controls can curb fraud and wastage, that’s not always enough.

The only way to minimize and prevent fraud is

  1. identify each type of fraud attempt that your organization is likely to get hit with
  2. for each type of fraud,
    1. identify processes that can be exploited, and change them to minimize exploitation
    2. implement specialized technology or algorithms to look for it and alert people to the potential — in real time (before money changes hands)
    3. educate your people on what valid payment requests look like, what typical fraud looks like, and when to ask questions and/or escalate it up the chain (possibly all the way to the CFO if necessary)
    4. anytime a fraud slips through, besides trying to immediately stop-payment, immediately do a post-mortem to figure out the root cause and update the process, technology, or detection methodology; fraudsters are always upping their game, so you need to always be upping yours

And when the doctor says you have to identify and target each type of fraud (scheme/scam) separately, he means it. There’s no one-size-fits-all for fraud, but there are technologies, techniques, and targeted theorem tabulations that can rather reliably progressively prevent frequent frauds.

Nor is it as simple as just throwing a bunch of analytics at the problem, as this recent article that purports to prevent procurement fraud with analytics that was published as a think tank article in SupplyChainBrain (which, as you can guess, really upset the doctor when think tank articles in Supply Chain Brain should be the best of the best and this was barely acceptable). Apparently the doctor will have to include Procurement fraud in his list of topics for his Source-to-Pay+ series because the state of information being provided to you is, for the most part, sorry and sad.

But waste is entirely different. As we alluded above, that typically takes the following forms:

  • frequent change orders during implementation, usually billed at excessively high day rates as they have to “divert resources” or “work overtime”
  • unnecessary customizations or real-time integrations that are an extensive amount of work (and cost) when out-of-the-box or daily flat-file synchs are more than sufficient
  • extensive “process evaluation” or “process transformation” processes that are well beyond what you need to eat up consulting hours
  • extensive “best practice” education when your practices are good enough for now and/or those best practices are already encoded in the system and just following the default process gives you the same education
  • additional seats or licenses you really don’t need (but you are convinced somehow that you do) (which don’t get used and just sit on the v-shelf)
  • etc.

Basically, you go in for a penny, and they take you on a joyride that costs a pound. They deliver the minimum at each step of the way so you can’t technically accuse them of fraud, but they end up making sleazy used car salesmen look good!