Category Archives: Best Practices

There are NO Simple Answers Because CONTEXT MATTERS!

If you’ve been following along, over the past few months we’ve had to complain about:

While these may seem like completely different situations that have to be (continually) (re)addressed on their own merits, they really aren’t. They are all interconnected (and taken together they help to define the 88%+ technical project failure rate in our ProcureTech space) and all have the one of the same issues at the core. They all try to oversimplify, which is something you cannot do in any field of technology because CONTEXT MATTERS!

Analyst Firm and Influencer Maps and flashy graphical comparisons on a few randomly selected “data points” are useless because context matters. You can’t create a shortlist of potential solutions without understanding, at a minimum:

  • who the company is and what the department does
  • the platform and skill topography
  • the problems that the existing topography is not solving

Because sourcing is not sourcing is not sourcing, procurement is not procurement is not procurement, and analytics is not analytics is not analytics. Indirect Finished Goods vs Direct Materials vs Services are sourced differently; catalogs vs. one-time buys vs. on-contract inventory replenishments are handled completely differently; and there’s reports vs drill down cubes vs data federation, and each brings different insights. APIs, interface, and integration requirements differ on platforms, core vs. nice to have shift based upon what’s in the ERP, AP, and SCP systems. And the maturity level has a great impact on what will, vs. will not, be used.

It’s NOT SIMPLE! And anytime someone says “keep it simple, just give them a list”, it means they don’t understand the reality of the situation and that, while it is not complex, not hard (and yes, Procurement can be really easy), it’s NOT simple. Context is needed to make the right recommendations and right decisions.

There is NO Autonomous AI Agent and anyone peddling one is selling the new silicon snake oil. (First of all, remember that there’s no such thing as Artificial Intelligence, and it’s still the case that since a computer can’t take responsibility for a critical decision, it should NOT make one.) For an agent to be autonomous, it would need to have, or be able to retrieve, all the data it needs, connect with all relevant internal and external systems, get information not on the web through traditional means (ask people), verify truth from lies, have the ability to adapt to any situation, and the intelligence to know when a decision can be made and when it can’t. Not only does it not have the intelligence, but no software agent in existence meets the rest of these requirements either. (The best that can be created is a support agent that can do all of the data processing, standard analysis, workflow automation, and decision suggestion using Augmented Intelligence that allows it to act as a useful personal assistant that multiplies your productivity. But ONLY if the Agent has the right context — and guess what, YOU have to work with a partner to custom build that agent with YOUR context. It won’t be delivered out of the box and magically trained just by feeding it your data. The myth of emergence has already been debunked. Please stop falling for it.)

There is no Best-In-Class process or methodology guaranteed to work for you. Unless you are lifting it from a company in the same business buying and selling the same products for the same consumer base that is structured the same way and more-or-less does the same thing as you, that best-in-class process or methodology may not even be close to what you need (and no amount of adaptation will get you there). Best-in-Class always works within a context (which includes your maturity level as an organization), and until that is understood, no consultant or analyst can make the right recommendations for where you are today.

So next time someone says it’s simple, and that their map, chart, or infographic will solve all your problems — delete it, because unless they also take the time to qualify the context in which that map, chart, or infographic applies, it is worse than useless for you (and doubly so if it presents a dangerous and dysfunctional dashboard) and may even cause organizational damage if blindly followed.

Finally, just remember, just because it ain’t simple, that doesn’t mean it ain’t easy. It just requires a bit of brainpower and effort to get it right, and, moreover, an amount thereof that is well within our capability!

Listen to Tom and Jon. Say what needs to be said. Especially if you can’t smile when saying it.

Procurement is not just about savings (and the cost avoidance that the C-Suite continually demands but refuses to recognize during the performance reviews). Nor is it just about supply assurance, which is most definitely critical in direct industries. It’s not even about risk management, even though that’s a big part, because the organization likely has a role dedicated to that.

It’s about value generation. While corporate and the other departments like to propagate the myth, Procurement is not a cost-center! With the exception of headcount and supporting software, it’s not spending it’s own money, it’s helping the other departments and budget holders spend their money more wisely in a manner that generates additional value, whatever that value may be. Sometimes it’s lower cost, sometimes it’s higher quality, sometimes it’s lower risk, sometimes it’s higher service.

This will require a lot more than just standing up and refusing to endorse a large contract that did not go through a proper selection process and/or was not properly vetted. (Emphasis on large. If the contract is small, and does not require procurement vetting [which will often be the case in Marketing, Legal, etc.], it’s probably not even worth the cost of review. But if a department wants to hand out a multi-million dollar contract with no bid and no vetting, BIG RED FLAG!)

A big thank you to Tom Mills for reminding us of this in his recent post on how Procurement’s job is not to smile and nod, which reminded me of a post by THE REVELATOR Jon Hansen about a year ago on How It’s Procurement’s Job To Speak The Unthinkable (which he credits to Tom for inspiring him in something Tom wrote about a year ago).

Because Procurement has to stand up to decisions that will have a significant negative impact on the organization, such as

  • outsourcing critical functions (with no mechanism to capture knowledge and bring the function back when a temporary crisis has been averted),
  • changing providers due to temporary geopolitical conditions without proper long-term planning, and/or
  • attempting to replace employees with AI (vs. augment them for maximum performance).

While we can say that all of this will make you EXCEEDINGLY UNPOPULAR with the CXO who is pushing for this (even more so than just telling the CEO to essentially f*ck 0ff, which, I can tell you from personal experience, they really don’t like to hear), you have to do it because, as we all know, none of the I-can-manage-off-a-spreadsheeet MBAs or @ss-k1ss3rs will! But all of this is absolutely vital to organizational success and the value Procurement can bring because no one understands better

  • the cost of lost knowledge,
  • the full impact of a rush decision to change suppliers and all of the organizational and supply-chain wide fallout that will occur for months (and maybe years) to come, and
  • the true value of a knowledgeable employee (vs. the true cost of a bad decision left to AI)

than Procurement. Procurement is about identifying, realizing, and protecting value. And if Procurement pros don’t speak up when they need to, then value will be lost. After all, it’s not like you can’t be very polite when doing it (unless the project leader keeps cutting you off, in which case you have another problem to speak up about).

Don’t Get Misled By Overly Simplistic Comparisons!

A recent post on LinkedIn on Coupa vs. I-Valua that implies it’s always Coupa vs I-valua or that Coupa is better is missing the point entirely. So much so, that the doctor had to call it out (see the initial LinkedIn response here) because it ends up being very deceptive (even if that wasn’t the intent).

The post made a very simple comparison between Coupa vs. I-Valua in big graphical format that basically said the following:

Coupa I-Valua
1 Billion in Annual Sales, inc. 2006 200 Million in Annual Sales, inc. 2000
Considered Innovation Leader Can Be Customized to Specific Needs
Generally Good Customer References Customers Have Mixed Success

So much wrong with this!

1) Revenue size is in no way indicative of a company’s particular ability to serve YOU. As long as the company is financially stable and has enough support staff for an organization of your size, that’s all you care about. (And it’s obvious they both do since once a company surpasses 100 Million in annual sales, it can serve the vast majority of enterprise clients.)

1b) Neither is time in business relevant once the company has been in business long enough to have a mature solution.

2) “Considered the Innovation Leader” is either opinion, not fact, or bland, marketing BS. By who? The market at large? Well, guess what, in this scenario neither Coupa nor I-valua qualify — Zip is the current darling of ProcureTech. (But don’t go there … please … don’t go there! [Or we’ll have to rip into that assumption too. For now, we’ll be content in reminding you that, despite what Zip claims, there are NO FREE RFPs.] To keep it short and sweet, Zip’s S2P capabilities are still relatively non-existent as it was built as an orchestration platform to connect existing systems and make them work better, and what they offer to plug the gaps you don’t have is not anywhere close to Best in Class.)

3) As Joel was also quick to point out in the comments, good customer references depends upon who you ask (and many of us who have been in the space a long time know that both vendors have very happy customers, some unhappy [former] customers, and customers who are generally satisfied (but wouldn’t go out of their way to give a recommendation). At Spend Matters, where I developed the Source-to-Contract Solution Maps, in the first release, I-valua was top dog and Coupa was average on the customer ratings. As more references poured in, I-valua dropped down to average and Coupa climbed slowly. In other words, both have great customer references, both have average customer references, and both sets of providers have a customer base with mixed success. (And you can’t always blame the company for the success or failure, both sell very advanced solutions and sometimes customers insist on a module they aren’t ready for.)

Furthermore this comparison misses multiple key points that need to be taken into consideration in any comparison, which include, but are definitely not limited to:

4) Simplification is key — and both platforms can simplify extensively! However, the approach is different — Coupa, in simple terms, gives you default configurations that are easy and widely adopted. I-valua built the infinitely customizable platform, and YOU have to work through that process to get it simple. In technical terms, I-valua was built for power users, Coupa for tech novices, but both can be configured to a middle ground.

5) There are more than 2 suites! While Coupa is a finalist in most deals (due to market size), depending on the industry and geography, the final “2” could also include SAP Ariba (yes, still), Jaggaer, GEP, Zycus, Oracle, Corcentric (Determine) or Synertrade, especially in enterprise deals, with another half dozen or so smaller suites emerging in the mid-market. And, for a subset of those deals, Coupa is definitely NOT the best. Sometimes it’s not even close!

5b) While Coupa is undisputedly one of the indirect (sourcing) market leaders, it is still very weak in direct sourcing compared to some of its peers (especially when compared to emerging players built for direct from the ground up). Classically, it had no direct support. The Trade Extensions acquisition gave it support in advanced sourcing and the Llamasoft acquisition gave it direct support in supply chain demand planning, but direct was never at Coupa’s core. For direct industries, it makes a difference. (To be fair, most of Coupa’s peers weren’t built for direct either, but Jaggaer acquired Pool4Tool, I-valua acquired and rebuilt DirectWorks in their platform from the ground up, GEP built NEXXE for supply chain to supplement its weak direct capabilities in SMART, and Synertrade was built from the ground up for direct – one of the few suites that was.)

I could go on, but, with over 666 companies to choose from, it’s never just Coupa vs. someone else, or I-vlaua vs something else. Sometimes neither of them should be in the room. Evaluate the alternatives. And do so after you know your core requirements, as that’s what you need to narrow down to a relevant pool of providers.

And also, you need to consider your sources when you see very simplistic one-side comparisons like these. While there may not be intentional bias, the relative knowledge the author has of different solutions will weight the comparison if the author is not an analyst who has rigorously, and objectively, weighted each platform side by side on its technical merits alone! (Which the doctor did for six years in this case, along with many of the other big names listed above.) (The Spend Matters solution map was a deep technical solution map with over 600 areas of feature/function/process evaluation on the tech axis [and dozens of questions on the customer axis] for a reason. Comparisons are NEVER this easy between suites and sometimes the usual market leader, for your organization, is the default market loser.)

In this situation, the post author’s company does a LOT of Coupa-related platform advisory, the post author has experience with Coupa that predates that in professional CPO or equivalent roles, and is one of the few consultants out there who has a good understanding of the Coupa platform. (And, by the way, there aren’t many of these consultants, especially when you consider that Coupa doesn’t really know Coupa anymore! The only two employees who knew the entire platform end-to-end, that contains over 20 acquisitions over the years, left last year. And the last few years also saw the departure of key personnel from acquisitions that gave them their advanced analytics, optimization, and risk capabilities. As for the doctor, he’s been following Coupa since Procurement Independence Day and consulted for, advised, or did diligence on half their acquisitions over the years. He’s one of the few that probably now knows the core of Coupa better than Coupa, and knows when someone, like the post author, knows a platform well.)

So if you need help identifying the right vendors to consider, and guidance on how you should be comparing them, seek out the niche analyst firms and independent analysts who have been covering the space for over two decades — they’ll give you the right list of vendors to look at, the right factors to consider, and can even help you craft the right RFP. (Unlike the big firms who just publish the same maps with the same vendors who happen to get a ranking that often just happens to be highly correlated to how much they pay the firm. [Remember, vendors have lured big analyst firms astray.])  And when you need help on a shortlist, seek out the consultants who have actually implemented multiple players on that list for their advice.

Forget Best in Class, Hype, or Futurism — If You Want To Improve, Mature!

As you know, and as we’ve written about repeatedly, the hype cycles for orchestration and Gen-AI are in full swing (even though both should be declining, they are both picking up steam, likely due to the ridiculous amount of money spent on marketing — which includes vendors buying analyst studies and reports that focus on areas where they look good).

Consultancies are not only trying to promote and sell you these technologies as a panacea for all your technology ills, but also trying to tell you that it’s what the best-in-class do and, by the way, that if you want to be best-in-class, you have to upgrade all of your processes (with their help) to those that the best-in-class use (whatever that means).

Furthermore, both are trying to tell you what the Future of Procurement is in 2030, 2035, 2040, etc.

And the reality is that NONE of this helps you. Not one bit.

As we have repeatedly pointed out, most of the currently hyped technology is still in experimental/beta stages. This is not technology that will help you mature. In fact, if you are not an industry leader, and mature in your processes, it may actually hold you back because you need to be a mature industry leader with your Procurement organization running smoothly to have the time and experience to properly evaluate these technologies and where they might fit in your organization.

Furthermore, every organization is different. As a result, what is a best practice for one organization may not be a best process for another. In fact, it might not even be relevant. While you will need to improve your processes, and streamline them for digitization, there is no set of fixed processes you can just plug and play and succeed.

And, don’t pardon my French, why the fuck would you care about what Procurement will be like in 5, 10, 15, 25 years. That does NOT solve your problem today. You care about what a better organization would like today and how to get there. That’s it. Just like the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step (and possibly a single kick in the ass), the path to success is continual improvement, and, simply put, doing better tomorrow than you are doing today.

This means that the key to success is good old maturity levels, current state assessments, and simple step-by-step plans to get from one level to another. Nothing fancy. Nothing tech-centric. And definitely nothing hyped!

While the doctor admits he did get a little tired of the plethora of these maturity maps that appeared in rapid succession in the late 2000s and early 2010s, including the one he did, it was much preferable to today where the dearth of these, and simple advice, is deafening. The help that is desperately needed is not there — replaced by (Gen-AI generated) (Gen-)AI and orchestration hype, not how they can (and cannot) support the solutions you need.

[Plus, let’s not forget that analyst firms and consultancies tend to ignore government regulations and industry compliance (except in country-specific studies), day-to-day pain points (because they aren’t sexy and won’t sell the hype), and, unless they can make a quick-buck (or get a major uptick in eyeballs), changing global conditions that require (temporary) supply chain pivots.]

So, if you truly want to improve, find a maturity model that walks you through the process and knowledge improvements you need to

  1. get to where you should have been when you started Procurement
  2. get to where you should be today
  3. prepare for the next 3 to 5 years (since no one looks beyond that anymore)
  4. slowly build out a foundation that will take you beyond that (without another massive investment)

That’s it. That’s how you make progress. And how you do it without flushing Millions of Dollars down the (Big X) consulting toilet.

Need a starting point? You can still download the classic paper the doctor wrote back in 2012, that was sponsored by BravoSolution (acquired by Jaggaer), on Taking the First Step on Your Next Level Supply Management Journey which describes the levels of maturity from standardization and complexity reduction (which is typically the first step an organization takes on its journey), to operational excellence (which is typically the second step an organization takes on its journey), to strategic business enablement (which is when it typically becomes best in class).

If you do a web search, you will find others from the big consultancies, but this gives you an idea of what to look for in a model that you can build a progress plan on. Where do you start, where will go next, and where do you want to end up. Note that a good model is tech free. Tech should support your growth, not the other way around. (In other words, it’s never Tech-First or AI-First, it’s solution first, and then you identify the right tech.)

And if you need help with a current state assessment, or flushing out a roadmap from one level to the next, or where you are now to standardization and complexity reduction, hire a niche consultancy who will take a no-nonsense approach to get you there at a reasonable cost. (This shouldn’t cost millions of dollars in a transformation project. Depending on your organizational size and complexity, somewhere in the low six figures should typically be enough to get your started, or mid to high five figures if you want to just focus on a few core areas at a time. But definitely NOT seven figures. That comes during the transformation process once you have identified the tech you need, and NOT the tech everyone is trying to shove down the proverbial throat.)

Optimization CAN NOT Be Automated!

Not long ago, THE PROPHET said that the future of optimization is self-adjusting autonomous systems that just “do it”.

And while future systems should:

  • automatically aggregate, verify, and enrich data from multiple sources
  • adapt constraint and model recommendations based on organizational and market trends
  • continuously monitor environments and suggest the next events based upon the opportunity
  • suggest categorization and framework refinements that would allow for more successful events
  • consider volatility and risk in its models and recommendations

These models should not:

  • autonomously seek out and integrate data without human validation
  • autonomously change constraints and models
  • automatically run events for categories still under contract
    (on the probabilistic expectation the savings will exceed the penalty)
  • change your categorization and framework without approval
  • replace deterministic models with probabilistic ones with unknown weightings on volatility and risk

and these models should definitely not run fully autonomously in the background and make commitments without human approval and intervention.

Going back to basics, which THE PROPHET says he knows well, there’s a very simple reason you need a human in the loop for sourcing, and the simple way to explain it is this. To a machine, a 3.5″ lid is a 3.5″ lid, especially when it’s not!

Apply this next generation fully autonomous optimization platform concept to a global fast food chain, and the first thing it’s going to identify is that the human is following a “hidden constraint” by always buying matching cup and lid sizes from the same vendor, and doing away with this arbitrary constraint will save a global operation millions a year.

The new junior buyer, upon seeing this, will jump and down and tell the platform to “Lock the order and output the savings report so I can demonstrate this new AI optimization tool saved millions”.

But that “hidden constraint” is a real constraint because 3.5″ is not 3.5″ across manufacturers who are still running on decades old production technology as the process to create the cups and lids for those fountain drinks hasn’t changed since we were kids, there were no standards then, and the measurements were always off a bit.

If you’ve ever wondered why sometimes the lid just stopped fitting when the “serve yourself” trend started, this is why — someone broke the unwritten rule — and the chain tried to pretend the problem didn’t exist.

Why did they try to pretend that the problem didn’t exist? That’s because the “fix” is to order the matching inventory from the same supplier, sit on double inventory, and send costs through the roof.

In other words, this twenty five year old hidden constraint that the doctor personally saw sourcing optimization consultants overlook (when they were told by the client that you couldn’t use manufacturer’s X lids with manufacturer’s Y cups and that constraint should, obviously, be part of the model) is still a valid constraint today. And other examples abound across categories. The specs seem the same on the spec sheet, but only the engineers and buyers know when they are not and apply “unnecessary” or “hidden” constraints to account for these situations.

Moreover, going back to the suggestions of THE PROPHET:

  • machines don’t know truth from lies, so if someone publishes false data, they will use that false data in enrichment, and there goes your model!
  • as we just demonstrated, sometimes AI will remove necessary constraints or not detect “hidden” constraints that need to be included
  • you don’t break a contract on a hunch — you break it when it’s not working out; if you find a better product or lower cost, you start switching over as soon as you can or by diverting as much as you can from an un-contracted/contractually satisfied supplier to that new supplier
  • you don’t completely change categorization and upend the financial reporting and other dependent processes because it suits the optimization module
  • you use the probabilistic assessments, you don’t replace your deterministic model, where you can compute optimality and confidence, with them

When it comes to optimization, you want Augmented Intelligence and a system that, with input and verification at the right points, does all of the tactical drudgery and thunking that the machines are great at (and we are not). You don’t want it autonomously making strategic decisions it doesn’t understand.