Category Archives: Best Practices

We’ll Say It Again. Analyst Firm 2*2s Are NOT Appropriate for Tech Selection!

Last year, while ranting about the plethora of utterly useless logo maps (which includes the Mega Map the doctor created to demonstrate the extreme futility of these maps), we also did a dive into why analyst firm 2*2s are NOT appropriate for tech selection. This is coming up again as a certain firm is really pushing All AI all-the-time and you can tell it’s about to infuse all their maps. Plus, the biggest firms are really pushing their quadrants, waves, and marketscapes, and most of these are showing the same solutions they showed last year and the year before that and the year before that and so on (going back a decade in some cases).

That, and a number of people are lamenting their lack of usefulness on LinkedIn, with one person even creating yet another logo map to highlight the “significant solutions that matter” (but we’ll save that rant for another day), so it’s time to make it clear that these maps are not appropriate (on their own) for tech selection. For example, in a discussion on my post on how your standard sourcing doesn’t work for direct, Thomas Audibert correctly states that static quadrants, in any form, do not work. (And then went on to correctly note that if you say there are, for instance, 80 sourcing solutions, it means that there are at least 20 niche (geographic, industry, customer size, …) categories of interest and that, unless they are catered within 20 different quadrants, this makes no sense to me.

And it doesn’t, because all a map can do, in the best situation, is give you a set of more-or-less comparable solutions that each serve a specific function (so you don’t end up trying to compare a Strategic Sourcing to a catalog-based e-Procurement to an Accounts Payable solution which, of course, serve three completely different functions). If it’s a good map, and by that I mean focussed on two things max, like Spend Matters Solution Map that only scores tech (on one axis) and only presents tech vs average customer scores (on the other axis), then you can use it to verify that one or two of your key requirements are met (such as the tech is solid and the customers are generally happy), but that’s it. (But if it’s a map that squishes 16 different scores into 2 dimensions, that’s useless … you don’t know what is contributing to the scores. What’s most important to you could be the lowest score in that score mish-mash number that looks above average.)

Moreover, at the end of the day, all an analyst can do that is useful is rate a vendor on one or more business independent objective dimensions that can be scored easily and, more importantly, give a customer comfort that the vendor does well on this dimension and they don’t have to worry about it in their evaluation. (For example, if a vendor does well in Spend Matters Solution Map, you know you don’t have to evaluate the underlying technical foundations, which is something most companies aren’t good at.) However, that’s not enough for a selection.

When it comes to tech, it’s important that:

  1. it’s solid
  2. it fills the need you are searching for
  3. it is easy to use by the majority of the users for the functions they will be doing the majority of the time

And, guess what, an analyst can only verify the first requirement. Why? An analyst doesn’t know your needs, you do. Moreover, they don’t know the TQ (technical quotient) of your users, the functions they do daily, or the processes they follow. You do. So, how can you expect an analyst to produce a map that tells you that.

But, if you’ve been paying attention, the solution to your problem is not tech. It’s process. And until you nail that, and then select the tech that matches that process, tech alone will NEVER solve your problem. NEVER.

And since analysts don’t know your business, or your

  • business size, Procurement department size, maturity
  • culture
  • risk tolerance
  • innovation level/comfort
  • current processes / required processes
  • customer service needs
  • etc. etc. etc.

or even how these slide on a scale across different companies of different sizes across industries, there’s no way they can produce a map that tells you all of this. Or even a fraction of this.

That’s why you need an analyst or independent consultant that truly understands the solution space you are searching in, what those solutions should do, and how to help you identify the subset that is not only technically solid but is also likely to meet your business requirements. (And remember, It’s the Analyst, not the analyst firm. If the analyst hasn’t reviewed dozens of vendors in the space you are searching in that offer the type of solution you are searching for, doesn’t know the must vs. should vs. nice to have requirements, and, most importantly, doesn’t have the technical chops to validate the solution technically (which is the weakness of every non-IT / non-Engineering business department), he’s not the analyst for you!

What Are the Biggest Organizational Cost Saving Levers?

Every year there is a new survey or research report that will name one to three levers as the biggest cost savings levers in an organization, but it’s really not that simple. For example, the SCMR last year reported on a BCG study and the Hackett Group 2024 Procurement Key Issues Report and said, in Managing Procurement in a Price-Sensitive Environment, that:

  • supply chain costs and
  • manufacturing costs

are the biggest levers for cost savings. And while generally true if more than 50% of revenue is being spent outside the global organization’s many four-wall structures, it’s not true if most of the spend is internal (on headcount, property, etc.).

And it’s not true at all in the current environment in America where now tariffs are increasing costs by up to 145% (and there’s no solution, beyond BTCHaaS) and everything is unpredictable.

Moreover, supply chain is generic — is the cost inefficiency in the manufacturer (and if so, is it in their material and component supply chain or in their operation), the distributor, the logistics partners, or the organizational warehousing and inventory management. And if its manufacturing costs, is the bulk of the costs raw materials governed by commodity markets or in the production process? If the former, you can’t do much. If the latter, the assembly line is your oyster.

And then, even if you find the lever, where is it located? Who has access? Do they have the strength and permission to pull it? It’s tough!

Let’s look across the spend (ignoring tariffs because they are beyond your control):

  • products: low quantity, no lever; high quantity, sourcing if the market conditions are in your favour (or about to not be in your favour, so you lock a contract in early for a small hit); if the product was never sourced before, it’s tail spend which typically sees 15% to 30% overpsend
  • services: low quantity, tiny lever; high quantity, across a nation or the globe, if you take a multi-level view, are willing to work with multiple providers, and apply SSDO (Strategic Sourcing Decision Optimization), 30% to 40% can be shaved off with no detriment in service level
  • logistics: mode matters; intermediate storage matters; FTZs matter; source and sinks matter (if you’re selling in multiple countries, you might want to consider producing from multiple countries); easy to take 10% off just with a better network design, sometimes 20% off with a better network design, smarter load distribution across carriers, more cross-docking (and less intermediate storage), and the most appropriate (mixed-modal) transport plan
  • taxes and tariffs: source and sink matters! and, in some countries, so does minority/diversity/etc.; you can cut these in half (or even eliminate them) with better planning; when tariffs can be 20% or more, this matters
  • warehousing: major cities and hubs are expensive, secondary locations can be a fraction of the cost; and if smartly located, can cut your “local” distribution costs to your “local” stores, plants, offices, and/or customers; for years all the studies said inventory cost can be as high as 25% of product cost; better management (not just JIT, that can lead to more stock-outs and losses than a few extra percentage points) can halve this while reducing stock-out rates
  • facilities: if you’re willing to consider a balance between on-site and remote, shared spaces (and designated lockers), locale of choice, costs (and savings) can vary wildly; millions can be saved here in larger companies;
  • personnel: you pay the best people the best rates and you keep them as the best deliver an ROI multiple that is many times an average Joe; but that doesn’t mean you have to overpay for benefits (and with good negotiation, you can get great benefit plans at below market average rates); this can be hundreds of thousands to tens of millions

There are many levers, and the savings potential differs by industry, company size, organizational Procurement maturity, and individual company.

In other words, don’t just look at the top two or three levers, look at all of them and focus on the ones with the most potential, even if they are on the bottom of the “expert lists”.

Follow the Money to Find Future Opportunity — Which Will NOT Be Fully Found With Autonomous Sourcing!

Spend Matters has thrown caution to the wind and followed Gartner’s lead jumping onto the AI Hype Bus (with no steering and no brakes) that is still heading straight for the cliff and are wheeling out webinars on AI faster than a prairie fire with a tailwind. (Needless to say Sourcing Innovation does not think this is a good thing. There are valid uses for AI and automated processing, but fully handing over financial decisions is like wheeling in the Trojan Horse and leaving it unguarded in the server room with unrestricted access to your bank integration.)

Recently, The Maverick advertised yet another Spend Matters webinar on Autonomous and AI Sourcing where he said we should “follow the money”. Which we should, but there are a few things we need to clarify first.

1. No Money Changes Hands In Sourcing

It changes hands in Procurement … and it’s because most companies don’t follow the money after the contract is signed that 30 to 40 cents of negotiated savings never materialize in many companies, which The Maverick should remember from his AMR and Hackett days, as it was laid clear in Mickey North Rizza‘s famous 2009 “Reaching Sourcing Excellence” series, which we know is in his archives.

2. “Speed” is NOT a strategic edge if you don’t get it right!

If you don’t go out with the right strategy, don’t know the current market price, don’t know the reason for the current market price, and don’t have the knowledge to project if the trend is going to continue, stabilize or reverse, going to market is not a good decision … and it’s an even worse decision to automate the sourcing project and secure an award as fast as possible if you don’t know if it’s the best you could have done or the worst you could have done.

3. “Pecunia non olet”, but yet these vendors are asking you to treat it like it does!

They want you to automate spend analysis, sourcing, contracts, purchases, and everything else that involves money by turning over everything to their Agentric AI because, apparently, money stinks and you don’t want to touch it. (But they are quite happy to not only spend yours for you but takes as much of it as they can for their services.)

But here’s what they don’t tell you.

  • AI is NOT Intelligent.
    The level of intelligence in their “AI” is equivalent to the level of intelligence in a carpenter’s hammer. The level of effectiveness is entirely dependent on how skilled the person “training” the system and how skilled the person “using” the system is, just like the effectiveness of a hammer is dependent on how well the carpenter was trained and how experienced he is in it’s use.
  • AI Does Not Know What it Does Not Know.
    If the data is incomplete, the recommendation is very likely incorrect.
  • AI Cannot Do Better than the Best A Human Has Ever Done in Decision Making.
    So, if none of the situations it was trained on led to great results, neither will what it recommends for you.

You need to remember how Gen-AI does its work (or should we say does not work). It is large document search and summarization and chain of compute. Now, the more advanced players are trying to embed knowledge graphs into this, but these are not perfect either. With good training examples, and a very similar situation, the probability it will work well is very good, but it’s still only a probability. As a result, nothing should ever be fully automated where money is concerned. The tools should be used for their recommendations, and if the recommendations are good, and the risk is low, most of the tactical data processing and event management should be automated, but the decisions should ALWAYS be made by a human, who should be involved at every decision point. Even if that decision is verifying the system recommendation. It only takes one miscalculation due to an incomplete data source to project a wrong trend, rush an auction, lock in a price 3X what you are paying now, only for it to fall in a month later when a factory (which went offline temporarily due to a manmade or natural disaster) comes back online and the supply-demand balance returns to normal. And while you may have stocked out for two weeks, those losses will be orders of magnitude less than paying 3X at a contract you have to honour (unless you want to get dragged into court).

Now, if you really want to make money, forget all this Autonomous and Agentric AI BS, look for Augmented Intelligence solutions that make your staff two, three, five, and even ten times more efficient, purchase those, and, remembering that the US infrastructure is crumbling fast (and not going to get renewed under a Republican administration that is more interest in trickle-on economic tax cuts for its billionaires than ensuring you have running water), it’s time to remember how the smart made money in ancient Rome — public bathhouses and latrines. Time to invest in your own desalination facilities and be ready when the public wells run dry. After all, “Pecunia Non Olet“.

The Best Way to Survive the AI-Powered Apocalypse? Go Old School!

If you’ve been following along, you know that a great purge is coming on two fronts. All the pundits agree on that! On the first front, a large number of vendors are going bye bye, as we’ve been telling you since our first post on the Marketplace Madness. On the second front, they took ‘er jobs. Except it’s not they, it’s AI.

So doesn’t this mean that if you want to survive the days ahead that you should find the most advanced AI provider that isn’t going to get purged in the near future, adopt the tech, replace as much staff as you can with AI, find a way to survive the hardship, and come out ahead when everyone decides that what they have to do?

Well, for the vast majority of the analysts and pundits, it is exactly what you should do — and do it right now. It’s AI overload all the time. And just when most hype cycles start to die down, this one gets a second wind of hurricane proportions.

But, in fact, it’s the last thing you should do. In fact, you should implement a Gen-AI ban and Agentric AI ban immediately, and identify classic ML-powered AI augmented intelligence tech that can supercharge your team, acquire it, and train your team on that immediately. Because you can get the same results as any Agentric AI can get if you employ the right classic ML-powered human-driven AI technology with the right algorithms, analytics, optimization, etc. Sure, a human might be a little bit slower than an algorithm that can work 24/7/365 without a break, but human who is appropriately skilled and trained will make up for this with something the AI doesn’t have, true intelligence.

You see, the thing about Gen-AI and Agentric AI is that it works great until it doesn’t. As per our recent post, Gen-AI is full of problems. In a recent post, we noted that, Gen-AI can:

  • get you sued
  • increase the chance you will be hacked
  • result in Million/Billion-Plus processing errors
  • shut down your organization’s systems for days
  • help your employees commit fraud

And those are the good side effects from its hallucinations. There are much worse side effects that can happen. If you refer back to our posts on the valid uses for Gen AI and the valid uses for Gen AI in Procurement

  • the embedded biases, that you might not even be aware of, could result in decisions diametrically opposed to what you are expecting
  • when it computes two options that are equally likely to generate the same end result for the company relative to the KPI it is using, there’s no guarantee it will select the right option — and there’s always a right option, especially if one option for cost savings is a longer term contract so the supplier can upgrade equipment and the other option is forcing the supplier to cut an already razor thin margin 50%
  • the hallucinations eventually become real, as the systems get so advanced that they not only create super realistic evidence to back up their recommendations, but take over your entire systems in the background so that you don’t know that a web request to verify a claim is actually still being processed by the AI that is now running in the background
  • it starts negotiations and cutting contracts you haven’t even authorized yet
  • it becomes you … and you get blamed for all its mistakes

In other words, ignore the Gen-AI and Agentric-AI technologies that are not the miracle cures they are promised to be. The miracle cures are the last generation ML-based AI technology that was just about to transform your operations under the expert fingers of your leading practitioners, not some probabilistic monstrosity that requires an entire data center to run to generate an output no one verify using a system no one understands. Hone your chops on those and you’ll get the results you need, without having to deal with unexpected, possibly catastrophic, failures along the way.

After all, when we told you about all of the great advancements that were coming in Source To Pay in our classic series (indexed here), none of it required Gen-AI to achieve!

Your Upteenth Reminder That Every Dollar Saved By Procurement Goes Straight to the Bottom Line!

… while 10 cents from every additional sale might make it, if you’re lucky!

A week or so ago, Joël Collin-Demers said COVID was the instigating event that pushed Procurement front and center in a comment to yet another post about the tariff crisis (to which, as I keep saying, the only solution is BTCHaaS), when it was really the (fist) elevating event in over a decade.

The first event that really put ProcureTech on the map was the 2008 financial crisis. This is because companies had to stop the bleeding, fast, and charged Procurement to get ‘er done. But once the markets settled, and the provider base stabilized, and companies willing to spend the money they needed to implement proper tech and get more efficient did so, Procurement kind of faded into the background again. That’s because, when markets rise, and sales rise, the C-Suite focusses entirely on revenue, almost to the point of irrationality, because the faster that revenue rises, the higher the valuation, and the more money they can make on the markets and trades.

However, the 2008 financial crisis is why the M&A and PE activity started to ramp up in ProcureTech in the early teens, because of the importance placed on cost cutting as a result of the 2008 financial crisis. And why, if something else had happened sooner, Procurement would have risen up the organizational chart faster, instead of falling back into obscurity at many organizations who returned undue focus to Sales and Marketing.

This, of course, belies the sad, sorry, state of affairs of North American business that still sees marketing and sales as the key to growth in a shrinking economy (and yes, with birth rates declining in almost all first world countries, it is a shrinking economy) when the real key is cost management. Remember your business 101 equation: Profit = Revenue – Expenses.

This says that every dollar of revenue you add is eaten up by the total cost to acquire that dollar — the total cost of that good or service, which is usually at least 90 cents of that dollar.

However, every dollar of expense you cut is gone in its entirety. Every dollar saved goes straight to the bottom line.

Thus, Procurement is 10 times as valuable as sales! But yet, the marketing madmen will try to hide that from you to protect their multi-million budgets!

So if you want to survive the crisis of the day, whatever that crisis may be, it’s not sales, it’s not marketing, it’s not finance, it’s not executive leadership or vision, it’s Procurement. Plain and simple. Maximize every dollar spent while eliminating those that don’t need to be.

Unless, of course, you are a ProcureTech vendor, in which case, as per a previous post, skip the fairy dust and buzzwords, focuses on your customers pain, and put together some educational materials (marketing and training) that will help them ease the bleeding. If you’ve forgotten how to do that, or never learned, there are those of us who can help you!