Category Archives: Best Practices

You Really Don’t Need to Read Another State of Procurement Report for Five Years!

Just read this 34 part series and you can ignore the 10+ surveys / studies / reports that will be collectively released by every major ProcureTech consultancy and analyst firm this year (which will likely include, but not be limited to: Capgemini, Deloitte, Everest Group, EY, Hackett, McKinsey, PwC, and many, many more)! We say this with certainty because we reviewed all of the reports they put out for the last 5 years and the vast majority of the content was the same year-after-year and firm-after-firm. You can practically count on any survey/study that tackles barriers, risks, and concerns to overlap with the following at least 80%, and that these will be the most significant barriers, risks, and concerns. In fact, in five years, only one concern will have changed, and that’s the tech-du-jour, because that’s all that was really different between 2025, 2020, 2015, etc.

You’re welcome!

You Don’t Need To Read Another State of Procurement Study for the Next 5 Years!

Top Barriers to Success

Breaking Down The Major Procurement Risks with High or Moderate Impact

Primary Concerns for Procurement Leaders

BONUS

Don’t Focus on Spend …

In a recent LinkedIn post by Celia SGAR, she made a very important point on a key requirement for good Procurement advice.

Focus on Impact, Not Spend!

Now, her advice, governance, assessment, and relationship breakdown was focussed on Supplier and Vendor Management, because otherwise you’re wasting your time reviewing the same suppliers over and over again, but the reality is that it’s good advice that should be applied across the Source-to-Pay and Category Management lifecycle and the only way you’re going to get good results in today’s turbulent trade tussles.

Right now, the typical focus when analytics is first implemented is to find the top suppliers and top categories. Then, you’re supposed to measure those suppliers and source any of these categories not currently under contract or coming up for contract in six months. Then you’re supposed to track those over the next year, match all of the invoices, and report on the savings. Which will end up being less than you expect because the reality is that most organizations know 8 to 9 of their top categories and 8 to 9 of their top suppliers without any analysis, those are the suppliers they are managing, and those are the categories that are being “sourced”, “spot bought”, or a combination of both based on what the organization feels is best.

But this typically isn’t where the biggest opportunities are! The biggest opportunities are in the suppliers providing critical components who aren’t being managed, the categories from the next tier that are not managed because the organization doesn’t realize they’ve went from tail to mid-tier, and the categories where extensive market research has not been done to not only understand market price but should cost.

Contract Management needs to focus on reviewing contracts that don’t have standard terms and conditions, don’t have risk management clauses for emerging and newly identified risks, and don’t have regular measuring, monitoring, and reporting clauses from both sides.

In other words, teams start off on the wrong focus, and continue on the wrong focus all the way through sourcing, contracting, and supplier management because they focus on spend, not impact.

And when it gets to supplier management, by not identifying which suppliers present the most risk due to supplier instability, part criticality, regional uncertainty, trade wars, sanctions, etc, the organization is overlooking, the organization is exposing themselves to risks with severe impact potential by not managing those suppliers first and foremost.

So, if you want to get Source to Pay right, focus on impact, not spend. Not only will you save more, but you’ll be more efficient, and more resilient, overall.

How Does a Vendor Build a GOOD Solution?

Two posts ago on the top final procurement concern of today (and the last five and the next three years) we told you that Gen-AI, which is (still) the tech-du-jour, is not really any different than every other tech-du-jour that we’ve had over the last two decades and, like all these preceding technologies (that were all over-hyped), it is not the panacea that will solve all your problems (despite claims to the contrary) and is, in fact, simply the latest incarnation of silicon snake oil.

Then, in our last post, we asked, and answered, why most (new) vendors are building on it. There are a host of reasons — which include greed, low TQ, hype, and cluelessness — and none of them are good. That’s why, as we stated, most (AI-first) start-ups today SUCK, and, to be honest, why most start-ups in our space suck in general (and do for at least the first few years of their existence, even if they aren’t AI first).

But we also told you that we’d tell you how a vendor can build a good solution, starting with V1. Just like selecting a solution that actually works is possible 80%+ of the time (if you follow the right method that we outlined in our series on Successful Vendor Selection Series, because, otherwise, your chances of success are about 12%), there are best practices that will maximize your chances of success. But like solution selection, don’t expect any of the big analyst or consult firms (that depend on never ending hourly support contracts) to give you any real advice! (They are all instances of The Vendor in Black … Comes Back!)

1A. Get Relevant Procurement Experience and Insight
By this I mean that if you’ve only worked for one or two companies and only done things one or two ways, you don’t really understand what Procurement needs generally — you only understand what your companies needed and what very similar companies in your niche industries need. With limited experience at one or two companies, you’re not building the perfect solution for the industry, you’re building the perfect solution for YOU, and YOU may not represent the majority of the market!

You don’t have this in your late 20s, or even your 30s. You have this in your 40s. (And then to run a successful startup, you need management experience — that’s why they’re saying 50 is the new 30 for startups … by then you truly understand what is needed and likely have the management experience to pull it off.) Any earlier/younger than this, and you better engage some real independent Procurement experts to help you define what you really need to do to address entire verticals or wide swaths of the market.

1B. Get Relevant SaaS Development Experience
You also need real SaaS Development Experience. The ability to vibe code, the ability to use low-code / no-code solutions, and even the ability to write web script DOES NOT COUNT! Script kiddies don’t build enterprise apps — the dot com boom and bust (which some of us remember — and the rest of you need to study because the Gen-AI bust could be as bad) made this clear. You need real, educated, experienced developers and architects who have worked in real tech companies building, deploying, and actually delivering enterprise apps! These are the only resources who build enterprise apps.

Now, it’s very, very unlikely you have both. That’s okay. That’s why you get the perfect partner that compliments you so that you collectively possess CPO (Chief Product Officer) vision and CTO capability from day one. Then, if the Procurement Expert founder is not a CEO, the two founders seek a third founder who is a real CEO with relevant C-Suite domain experience, and if the Procurement Expert founder is a CEO, the two founders seek a real domain expert who has product management experience who can be the CPO.

2. Define the problem you want to solve in detail!
What is the real pain point? What does the solution look like? How do you measure it? How do you get there?

Once you’ve answered the key questions and fully defined the problem, define the process that solves it. Then define the variations to the process. I.E. What are the core, required, steps. What are additional optional steps. Where might approvals or sub-processes be required in specific situations.

Then define what can be automated, what needs to be done by a human, and where there are multiple options.

Only once you fully understand the process and variation across companies of different sizes, categories of different complexity, and departments of different maturity in the verticals you are going for can you attempt to build a platform that will support it.

3. Identify the minimally appropriate and best-match algorithms for each process step and the best tech for stringing the algorithms together.

Some steps will just be collecting information on a form, validating the response type with regular expressions, and validating the data with third party integrations … and possibly require a(nother) user to accept it. Other steps will just be running pre-defined analytics and suggesting or taking an action based on the result, possibly using a rules-based multi-select with adjustable parameters. Others will be RPA auto-execute based on previous steps. Others still will be machine learning based on collected inputs from previous steps. And so on. (Very rarely will you need advanced AI and rarer still will you need [anything close to] Gen-AI. This is another reason AI-first is so wrong!)

When you go through this process, you will find that not only do most steps not require any (Gen-)AI at all, but most are better served without AI. You’ll find it only fits in the few situations it is good at (natural language processing, large document search and summarization, potential pattern identification, etc. for Gen-AI), and that if you apply it, you should do so narrowly, with custom trained models with guardrails and, if possible, have users accept recommendations to modify rules to reduce dependence over time.

4. Remember that good enterprise solutions have MDM (Master Data Management), Workflow, and Orchestration at the core.

These are not after thoughts. In addition, if you plan to support global users or sell your solution globally, multi-language support and internationalization MUST be at the core as well.

5. Select a programming language and an enterprise stack that supports ALL of the requirements identified above.

Not the stack that is cool, the stack that makes it super simple to get MVPs out the door, the stack used by your favourite AI platform, the stack recommended by your favourite cloud provider, but the stack that will work for the enterprise application you want to build. Then select the cloud provider — most of them are pretty competitive, and most of them support the majority of enterprise stacks, especially if they are not Microsoft (which wants a .Net/C# Azure Friendly Stack).

6. Plan out three years of major features.
These major features will support additional process extensions and related processes as there’s no significant shelf life for a niche app that only does one thing unless that one thing is so complex that almost no other application does it and the cost of building such an app from scratch by a new startup is prohibitive (especially relative to the untapped market potential).

Too many startups define the MVP, race to build the MVP, and then try to figure out what comes next. This is equivalent to shooting yourself in both feet with your brand new shotgun.

1) While you’re trying to figure out what to do next, your competitors are already building it.

2) By failing to define where you are going, you’re taking shortcuts and building the foundations for a dinky niche SaaS app versus a full-fledged enterprise application. The way I like to explain this to non-technical folk is that if you’re designing to MVP, you’re building the foundation for a two-story house and that means all you can ever build on that foundation is a two-story house. When you’re thinking three years ahead, you’re building the foundation for a multi-story apartment complex, building the first floor, and just pausing before you build the second floor. (And so on.)

In the first case, once you figure out what comes next, you realize you don’t have the right architecture or infrastructure, and then have to stop and rebuild the core, slowing down your advancement and future releases even more unless you can miraculously define the minimal API to the core you will be rebuilding up front, simultaneously build the new features perfectly to that API while trying to re-architect the core, and somehow fully achieve that API and don’t have to change it significantly during implementation when you find out it just won’t support the required workflow or orchestration … which it inevitably won’t, and then you need to update the API, and then this necessitates a rewrite of the business logic layer (and even UX) on the fly, which not only results in wasted time but wasted development because you tried building multiple levels of a house of cards all at once. A few extra months of research and planning up front will save you years!

7. Get a couple of beta customers by the time you hit beta on the MVP.
You need to verify all the assumptions YOU made in the design and implementation with a real customer (that wasn’t one of the companies you came from), test the usability, and see how real Procurement departments work (that weren’t the one or two you had experience with). You might find you have a lot more work to do before release than you thought, but it’s better, and easier, to do this before you sell it to enterprise customers as a ready-to-use enterprise product than after!

In other words, it’s not just designing an MVP on a napkin, vibe coding your way to implementation, giving a flashy demo, and delivering on a major cloud platform. (Which is what a lot of startups are doing, and that’s why so many SUCK.) It’s deep thought from day one over months and months, if not a year or two (if you are trying to do something significantly complex). But then it’s a real solution that will be relevant for years (and years) if done right (and continuously improved, appropriately maintained, and always priced appropriately).

And yes, you can argue that more steps, or at least a deeper refinement of the above steps, are needed, but these are the absolutely critical steps and many of the ones that often skipped — which results in poor solutions and sometimes complete startup failure!

Primary ProcureTech Concern: (Gen-)AI Integration/Impact

The non-stop hype coming straight from the A.S.S.H.O.L.E. is continuing to cause market confusion and utter chaos.

Why?

Gen-AI is on the concerns list because it’s the tech-du-jour. Five years ago it was (advanced) (predictive) analytics. Ten years ago it was the fluffy magic cloud. Fifteen years ago it was SaaS. Twenty years ago it was the World Wide Web. And so on.

But not one of these technologies, all sold as the panacea that would solve all your woes, solved your problems because all of the promised capabilities were just silicon snake oil, and Gen-AI is no different. The hype cycle may be slowly coming to an end, but it will quickly be replaced by Some-BS-World-Model-Adjacent-Agentic-AGI that will be sold as the AI that finally solves all your problems but, in reality, still won’t be anything close (but, if narrowly applied in the right domains where the client has sufficient data might actually work quite well … but won’t do anything reliably in general and the failure rate will still be 80%+, which is the average tech failure rate for the last 25 years … and SI knows, because the doctor has been following tech failure for over 25 years).

Not only is Gen-AI no different than the previously over-hyped tech-du-jour offerings of the last two decades, but with a failure rate of 94%+ (McKinsey, and 95%, MIT), it’s arguably the worst yet! And, as per our predictions, it’s not going to get much better. If the failure rate gets as low as 90% this year, it will be the closest thing to a tech miracle that we can conceivably get. Like every other tech before, Gen-AI will only solve a relatively small set of problems.

Just like

  • The Web only solves remote connectivity
  • SaaS only allows solutions to be built in the cloud
  • Analytics only provides insight where you have the right, sufficient, data and the right algorithms to get useful insights
  • Gen-AI is just a next-gen probabilistic deep neural net that often does
    • better semantic processing
    • better search
    • better summarization
    • better potential pattern identification (but only if you can learn how to prompt it to do so and only if you have it trained on the right data subsets, not the entire web which is now more than half AI slop)

    but does so at the additional expense of

    • hallucinations
    • intentional falsehoods
    • thoughtless reinforcement
    • cognitive atrophy
    • etc. etc. etc.

As a result of this, as far as I’m concerned, the AI bubble can’t burst fast enough! It’s all hype, buzzwords, and hallucinatory bullcr@p. And, frankly, any (claims of) agentic AI built on it are fraudulent. (After all, we’ve already seen what happens when you let AI run your vending machine. The last thing you want is it buying for you!)

Especially when, on top of hallucinations, we have plenty of examples of:

We’ve said many times that LLMs are not helpful and ChatGPT (in particular) is not your friend, that if you have a headache you definitely shouldn’t take an aspirin or query an LLM, and that, frankly, you’d be better off with a drunken plagiarist intern because that’s the best case result from an LLM. Most are worse.

Frankly, it’s time to stop falling for the artificial intimidation, fight back against AI Slop, and remember cutting edge tech is NOT defined by the C-Suite or the incessant marketing from the A.S.S.H.O.L.E. that is targeting the C-Suite on a daily basis!

Impact Potential

Huge! Companies will continue to waste millions individually and collectively hundreds of billions on the next generation tech that, with a probability of 90%+, will generate a (huge) loss.

Major Challenges/Risks

The major challenge is not with the tech, it’s helping companies realize that they’re probably not ready for the tech. The reason that tech failure rate has averaged 80%+ over the last twenty years is that consultancies keep promoting, vendors keep selling, and companies keep buying advanced leading edge tech they are not ready for. The reality is that unless you are in the top 10% of buyers of tech, already on the latest tech, and have sufficiently mastered that tech, you are not ready for Gen-AI (which should not have left the research lab when it did and, in all honesty, should still be in the research lab since it still only works in a small number of well defined scenarios and is so bad that every year a couple of AI founders turn away from AI because of it — with Yann Lecun walking away from Meta and LLMs and reverting to world models, that can be thought of as next generation (Semantic) Web 3.0 models augmented with [deterministic and dependable] automated reasoning and, hopefully, very little dependence on hallucinatory probabilistic models [beyond what’s needed to semantically parse an input].)

The only place you should be using Gen-AI is where a non Gen-AI solution doesn’t exist, the task is well defined, and you can build a custom in-house model that works reasonably well in the majority of situations and that can be implemented with guard-rails. But that’s something you can only do if you have a high TQ (Technical Quotient) and have mastered last generation tech. Right now, you should be tripling down on E-MDMA and Advanced Analytics as this tech has improved to the point where it can allow you to optimize processes, spending, schedules, and anything else you can think of with high accuracy and low cost with basic analytics skills as so much comes pre-packaged and the visualizations and drill-downs are much more intuitive than they were a decade ago. Plus, these firms have figured out how to use multiple forms of AI to classify your data with high accuracy and minimize the work required by you to fix errors and reclassify to your preferred schemas. It’s literally drag and drop as compared to the complex rule-building that used to be required. In addition, you should be looking for the mature A-RPA (Advanced Robotic Process Automation) solutions that are highly customizeable and capable of “self-learning” such that the parameters that trigger exceptions will adjust over time based upon user acceptance or rejection of recommended actions and the platform will automatically encode new processing rules based upon the users’ actions on an exception. Much better than Artificial Iiocy that decides everything based on hallucinations.

THE FINAL WORD

If you haven’t mastered all of the tech that existed before Gen-AI, including classical machine learning AI that has been studied, optimized, and proven to work for over a decade, you’re not ready for Gen-AI, should treat it like the drug it is (as it does more damage to your cognitive abilities than many illegal drugs), and JUST SAY NO!

Primary ProcureTech Concern: Weakness & Volatility in Emerging Markets / Trade Wars

Emerging markets are your future markets, and often the source of critical raw materials.

Why?

Given that a lot of outsourcing has been redirected to these “low cost” markets over the past two to three decades, any rapid increase in volatility becomes a significant concern, especially if the markets are not strong enough to weather the storm. A major event could wipe out an entire subset of the supply base literally overnight, greatly increasing supply shortages and increasing the market complexity. Or at least make it unsustainable, such as a 145% tariff on China which is the source of over $500 Billion dollars in imports into the USA.

Impact Potential

The impact of a “low cost” market becoming unavailable, or at least unsustainable, is moderate to severe, especially if all of your outsourced eggs are in the same country basket. One lesson that some companies haven’t learned yet is that dual sourcing is not reducing risk if the two sources of supply are in the same country (or the same small geographic region — because if you have two factories located 100 miles from each other on two sides of a border, guess what, one natural disaster can wipe them both out).

If your primary source of affordable supply is wiped out overnight, it could take months to identify a new source of supply and quarters to secure the supply and get your supply chain flowing properly.

Major Challenges/Risks

Foreign Market Predictions
It’s hard to predict what’s going to happen in a foreign market that you aren’t in everyday. You can follow economist predictions, follow currency trends, try to get a grip on the trade relations between that country and your home country, and so on, but it’s not easy. If you can predict early enough, you can take action. But if an administration, without warning, decides to drop 100%+ tariffs on your source of supply, you’re in trouble.

Alternate Sources of Supply
Sometimes there’s few sources of supply for a given material, part, or product outside of a given country that has a similar total cost of acquisition, especially if you aren’t sourcing at full volume. Identifying alternate sources of supply that you can switch to quickly can be quite a challenge.

New Market Identification
If the emerging market also happens to be one of your primary emerging sales markets, the hit from volatility can be quite significant if the volatility results in rapid inflation, job loss, or both and your sales start to drop rapidly.

Final Words

Given the globalization of today’s supply chains, where a product can depend on materials and parts from dozens of countries, weakness and volatility in emerging markets is a significant concern. And we have yet another (fourth) reason you need an economist!