Category Archives: Market Intelligence

The UX One Should Expect from Best-in-Class Spend Analysis … Part III

In previous posts, we took a deep dive into e-Sourcing (Part I and Part II), e-Auctions (Part I and Part II), and Optimization (Part I, Part II, Part III, and Part IV). But in this series we are diving into spend analysis. And this time we’re taking the vertical torpedo to the bottom of the deep. If you thought our last series was insightful, wait until you finish plowing through this one. By the end of it, there will be more than a handful of vendors shaking in their boots when they realize just how far they have to go if they want to deliver on all those promises of next generation opportunity identification they’ve been selling you on for years! But we digress …

We’ve said it multiple times, but we are going to repeat it again. The key point to remember here is that there are only two advanced sourcing technologies that can identify value (savings, additional revenue opportunity, overhead cost reductions, etc.) in excess of 10% year-over-year-over-year. One of these is optimization (provided it’s done right, useable, and capable of supporting — and solving — the right models; see our last series). The other is spend analytics. True spend analytics that goes well beyond the standard Top N and report templates to allow a user to cube, slice, dice, and re-cube quickly and efficiently in meaningful ways and then visualize that data in a manner that allows the potential opportunities, or lack thereof, to be almost instantly identified.

But, as per our last two posts, this requires truly extreme usability. Since not everyone has an advanced computer science or quantitative analysis degree, not everyone can use the first generation tools. This limits these users to the built-in Top N reports. And as we have indicated many times, once all of the categories in the Top N have been sourced and all of the Top N suppliers have been put under contract, there is no more value to be found from a fixed set of Top N reports. At this point, the first generation tools would sit on the shelf, unused. And that’s not how value is found.

However, creating the right UX is not easy. It’s not just a set of fancy reports (as static reports have been proven to be useless for over a decade), but a powerful set of capabilities that allow users to cube, slice, dice, and re-cube seven ways from Sunday quickly, easily, and repeatedly until they find the hidden value. It’s innovative new reporting and display techniques that makes outlier identification and opportunity analysis quicker and easier and simpler than its ever bin. It’s real-time data validation and verification tools that insure that a user doesn’t spend a week building a business case around data where one of the import files was shifted by a factor of 100 because of missing decimal points, destroying the entire business case in 4 clicks. And so on. And that’s why the doctor and the prophet are bringing you a very in-depth look at what makes a good User eXperience for spend analysis that goes far, far deeper than anyone has done before.

In a time where there seems to be a near universal playbook for spend analysis solution providers when it comes to positioning the capability they deliver and when many vendors sound interchangeable, and when many vendors are fungible in a way that is not necessarily negative, this insight is needed more than ever. And if a few dozen vendors quake in their books when this series is over, so be it.

In the first part of our series, we explored a few key capabilities that must be present from the get go, including, as we dove into here on SI in our first post on The UX One Should Expect from Best-in-Class Spend Analysis … Part I, dynamic dashboards. Unlike the first generation dashboards that were dangerous, dysfunctional, and sometimes even deadly to the business, true next generation dynamic dashboards are actually useful and even beneficial. Their ability to provide quick entry points through integrated drill down to key, potentially problematic, data sets can make sharing and exploring data faster, and the customization capabilities that allow buyers to continually eliminate those green lights that lull one into a false sense of security is one of the keys to true analytics success. (For more details, see the doctor and the prophet‘s first deep dive on “What To Expect from Best-in-Class Spend Analysis Technology and User Design” (Part I) over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required]).

In the second part of our series we explored a few more key capabilities, four to be precise, that include dynamic cube and view creation “on the fly”. Given that:

 

  • A cube will never have all available (current and future) data dimensions
  • Not all data dimensions are important;
  • Some of the essential data (referenced in the previous point) will be third-party data updated at different time intervals
  • A user never needs to analyze all data at once when doing a detailed analysis.
  • We have not (yet) encountered a system that will have enough memory to fit enough of a true “mega cube” in memory for real-time analysis.

 

One cube will NEVER be enough. NEVER, NEVER, NEVER! That’s why procurement users need the ability to create as many cubes as necessary, on the fly, in real time. This is required to test any and every hypothesis until the user gets to the one that yields the value generation gold mine. Unless every hypothesis can be tested, it is likely that the best opportunity will never be identified. If we knew where the biggest opportunity was, we’d source it. But the best opportunities are, by definition, hidden, and we don’t know where. Success requires cubes, cubes, and more cubes with views, views, and more views. (For more detail, or information on the other capabilities we didn’t cover in our post on The UX One Should Expect from Best-in-Class Spend Analysis … Part II, see the doctor and the prophet‘s second deep dive on “What To Expect from Best-in-Class Spend Analysis Technology and User Design” (Part II) over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required].)

But much, much more is required. That’s why the doctor and the prophet recently published their third deep dive on “What To Expect from Best-in-Class Spend Analysis Technology and User Design” over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required] on the breadth of requirements for a good Spend Analysis User Experience. In this piece, we dive deep into three more absolute requirements (which, like the previous requirements, are so critical the absence of any should delete a vendor from your list) including real-time idiot-proof data categorization.

Just about every solution has categorization, most allow end users to at least over-ride categorization, but, in our view few, relatively few solutions can claim (to approach) idiot-proofness.

So what is an idiot proof solution? Before we define this, let us note that the approach a provider takes to classification is secondary. It doesn’t matter whether the methodology provided is fully automated (and based on leading machine learning techniques), hybrid (where the machine learning can be overridden by the analyst with simple rules), or fully manual (where the user can classify data using free-form rules created in any order they want on any fields they want).

This means that the system must provide a simple and effective methodology for classifying, and re-classifying, data in an almost idiot-proof manner. So, if the engine uses AI, it should be easy for the user to view, and alter, the domain knowledge models used by the algorithms. If it uses rules-based approaches, it should be easy to review, visualize, and modify rules using a language and visual techniques wherever possible. And if the solution uses a hybrid approach, the user should be able to quickly analyze the AI, determine the reason for a mis-map, and then define appropriate over-ride rules that will correct any errors the user discovers so the error never materializes again in the future.

In other words, success requires cubes, cubes and more cubes on correctly mapped and classified data that can be accessed through views, views, and more views. With any data the user requires, from any location, in any format. But more on this in upcoming posts. In the interim, for additional insight on a few more key requirements of a spend analytics product for a good user experience, check out the doctor and the prophet‘s second deep dive on “What To Expect from Best-in-Class Spend Analysis Technology and User Design” (Part III) over on Spend Matters Pro [membership required].) As per the past two parts of the series, it’s worth the read. And stay tuned for the next two parts of the series. That’s right! Two more parts. We told you this one was a doozy!

Why Can’t We Get No Satisfaction?

A few days ago we lamented, in song, that we can’t get no satisfaction. Why? Because buyers rarely get satisfaction. Rarely. Why?

Stakeholders are never pleased.

You save them money, they moan and groan that you changed suppliers. You stay with the same supplier and work with them to improve quality, they complain and lay the blame on you for the cost increases. You split the demand across preferred suppliers across geographies to mitigate risk, they lament that now they have to work twice as hard with logistics. And so on.

Management is pushing for savings today at the expense of cost tomorrow.

As we indicated in our post on Once Upon a Time, Not So Long Ago … the primary goal of Procurement should not be short term savings but long term value generation as the name of the game is long term cost control. Besides, savings that are too good to true really are too good to be true and the savings that comes out of one budget category from chasing a pipe dream just inflates another budget category.

They are never enough tools for the job.

Let’s face it, almost 40% of Procurement departments still don’t have any modern Procurement or Sourcing solutions, and of those that have these tools, the number that don’t have a modern spend analysis solution is greater than 40% and the number that don’t have a modern optimization (-backed) sourcing solution is greater than 80%. And let’s not talk about a modern Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) solution with contract analytics, a modern Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) solution with true relationship and innovation management, or a modern category management and planning solution.

The tools they have are often out of date …

Many companies that acquired on-premise tools last decade are still using the on-premise versions of those tools almost ten years later. While these first generation tools were great at the time, in many ways we are now entering the third generation of Sourcing and Procurement solutions with advanced functionality, advanced usability, machine learning, community intelligence, and other innovations that are the foundation of what will be required to take performance to an 11!

… or provide a bad user experience.

As you might have guessed from our recent onslaught of posts on UX, both in general and specific to e-Negotiation in general, e-Auction, and optimization, many, if not the majority, of solutions out there are lacking in UX to some degree (and many of the older solutions don’t have any semblance of a modern user experience at all!). The most significant barrier to adoption, which is critical to success, is the user experience, so if it’s bad, you would have been better off spending that money on beer-filled Friday pizza parties because at least then your team would be happy one day a week.

In other words, Procurement is a tough job which often offers little, if any, comfort to the seasoned professional trying to make the best of a bad situation. So the least you can do is get them some good tools, use your head and put long term success ahead of short term cash savings, and realize that everything is a trade off and that if you demand Procurement increase the value along a certain dimension, another dimension will diminish. It’s life. Just like you can only ever control two out of three when it comes to time, resources, and cost when doing a project, trade-offs are a reality of life. Procurement will do the best they can, but every hard constraint will hurt you. Remember that.

Coupa + Trade Extensions = ??? … Part II

Back in May, the doctor indicated that at some point after Inspire he’d do a deep dive into the acquisition of Trade Extensions by Coupa. He waited as he wanted to think more on the possibilities and probabilities and get more insight into the potential, but as no additional insight appears to be coming in the short term, in our last post we began to summarize where things are at now from the perspective of a SWOT analysis. Yesterday we outlined some of the key strengths and weaknesses of both platforms. Today we will dive into some of the key opportunities and threats.

Coupa + Trade Extension Opportunities

  • Quick deployment anywhere due to pure SaaS nature
  • The great UX offered by both platforms is extremely attractive
  • Both are true market leaders in what they do
  • Both are deployed, supported, and used, globally
  • The Open Business Network can feed new suppliers and quotes into both platforms
  • All spend can be appropriately placed under management
  • Easy analysis of all spend and spend data can be accomplished between the platforms
  • Collectively, each key step of the full Source-to-Pay platform is supported
  • A large amount of educational content on both fronts that can form the foundation for end-to-end Source-to-Pay education

Coupa + Trade Extension Threats

  • Not the only Source-to-Pay offering
    Jaggaer has better CLM & SXM
    Ivalua is one platform
    etc.
  • Weak CLM and no contract analytics leaves an opening for competitors
  • Weak SPM and no best-of-breed SRM leaves another opening for competitors
  • Out-of-the-Box integrations with on-site systems is limited
    and a great web API is often only great for cloud-based solutions
  • No end-to-end category guidance and management
  • No category templates for common categories for strategic sourcing or group-purchase Tail Spend sourcing
  • The platforms do not integrate and may not for some time …
    while sourcing always precedes procurement, awards need to get from sourcing to procurement and spending needs to be monitored and analyzed against spend and logistics may need to be optimized mid-contract if demands change or factory allocations shift
  • No end-to-end education on how to master S2P to not only maximize SUM but maximize savings and value

    … but most importantly …

  • No clear direction on how the two platforms will be integrated to increase the net value of both.
    Considering there has not yet been a truly successful acquisition of a strategic sourcing optimization platform (where both the acquirer and the acquiree’s platform have thrived), this is a major threat … and worry.
  • The two companies don’t speak the same language. Not even close.

At the end of the day, as we have indicated before, there is a huge potential for both companies and all of their collective customers, but, hiding in the shadows, there is also the potential for catastrophic failure. (This was one of the priciest acquisitions of a best-of-breed platform in optimization history, and Coupa could have done a lot with the money it spent.) The jury is still out, but to be honest, the longer it takes for a clear direction to materialize, the more one naturally starts to worry.

Coupa + Trade Extensions = ??? … Part I

Back in May, the doctor indicated that at some point after Inspire he’d do a deep dive into the acquisition of Trade Extensions by Coupa. He waited as he wanted to think more on the possibilities and probabilities and get more insight into the potential, but as no additional insight appears to be coming in the short term, we’re going to summarize where things are at now, from the perspective of a SWOT analysis.

Coupa Strengths

  • Pure SaaS
  • Extremely easy to use tactical e-Procurement/P2P Solution
  • Compliant e-Invoicing in 30 Countries
  • Open Business Network
  • Integrated Expense Management … on the go
  • Integrated Budgeting
Trade Extension Strengths

  • Pure SaaS
  • Easy to use optimization-backed Strategic Sourcing Platform
  • Most powerful decision optimization platform on the market
  • Extremely powerful fact sheets for upload, verification, and analysis
  • Extensive formula and modelling support to support any category and modelling needs
  • The TESS Academy
Coupa Weaknesses

  • Integration to On-Site Systems is Limited
    (the API is great for integration to other SaaS solutions)
  • Integrated RFX/Auction support is extremely limited, no BoM support
  • Community Intelligence is limited to what is pushed through the platform
  • Large Supplier Network, but limited intelligence on reliability, sustainability, and risk
    (the Riskopy acquisition will hopefully improve the situation over time)
  • Well suited for Tail Spend, but no built-in help identifying categories that should be strategically sourced
  • Contract Management is very limited
  • Focus on just pushing spend through the platform to increase SUM detracts from value-generation opportunities
Trade Extension Weaknesses

  • Out-of-the-Box integration to other systems is extremely limited
  • No repository of out-of-the-box models for standard categories
  • Contract Management is very limited
  • No auto-classification, initial cube construction requires expertise and elbow-grease
  • No Supplier Information Management or integration with an SXM platform

Come back tomorrow where we discuss the opportunities and threats.

Once Upon a Time, Not So Long Ago …

Investors used to look for the long term. Even Wall Street promoted companies that looked to the long term. Companies would form, and invest in, R&D labs that wouldn’t realize products for five years and returns for ten. Because they knew that, with the right investment, over the right amount of time, the payoff would be enormous. Maybe even gigantic. 10X would happen, and more. Maybe 20X or even 30X. Not over night, but over time. They didn’t expect 10X returns in 3 years. They were willing to wait a decade or more.

Who wouldn’t be willing to wait a decade for a 10X return. Especially when 10X your money every ten years means that in 30 years you’ve increased your money by 1,000. That means that 1,000 today nets you 1,000,000 in 30 years. Given an average rate of inflation of 1.35% per year, in 30 years, you’re 1,000, uninvested, would have depreciated by a third. And the thing is, if you invest in a relatively safe bet, your odds of getting that 10X return in ten years are quite high. Considerably more than the odds of investing in a random startup. Whereas the odds of investing in a new startup with barely an MVP, no track records, and essentially no real, paying customers might be 1 in 10, the odds of a company or product that is solid, growing organically, and currently experiencing year over year growth at a rate of 30% to 50% continuing to grow at that rate is likely at least 50% with the right investment. A growth rate of 30% over ten years increases your money by a factor of 13.79 and a growth rate of 50% over ten years increases your money by a factor of 57.67. If you started with 3,000 and only every third bet paid off, you’re still getting that 1,000,000. In fact, you’re probably getting 2,000,000 to 3,000,000. So why wouldn’t you play it safe and wait?

If you’re not a total idiot, you would. So, taking the same logic, in Procurement, why do you push for savings today over value tomorrow? Even though real savings go straight to the bottom line, fake savings don’t. And when you get taken in by a large near-term potential savings opportunity, chances are it won’t materialize whereas a long-term value-generation plan, that comes by way of supplier development that will lead to guaranteed savings through lean process improvement, elimination of a dependency on a rare earth metal or other raw material in limited supply, reduction in energy usage requirements, and so on.

So what do we mean by fake savings? Fake savings is the projected savings opportunity that comes from an award allocation that requires shifting a large part of supply to an unproven supplier, or an untested product, typically in a low cost country, that looks great during an auction, but will never materialize because the buying organization didn’t do a detailed cost analysis and doesn’t realize the extra costs with offshoring or switching.

For example, maybe the supplier doesn’t speak, or read, English as well as they claim and stated they could fulfill a requirement with their current manufacturing line, but couldn’t, and needs to make additional investment and production line upgrades, which will take the plant offline for a few weeks. This could result in a significant delay which would, in return, result in lost sales and possibly even lost customers. This is costly. Or maybe the supplier can’t produce products of the same quality, and the defect rate is not 1%, but 5%. Not only will this increase costs by almost 6% off the top as you will have to order 6% more product, but then there is the return processing and warranty costs and costs associated with dissatisfied, or defecting customers. Or maybe the supplier hid the true costs associated with the product by claiming their product fell under one H(T)S category, but actually falls under another, at double the tariff rate. Or maybe they gave you their office address and you modelled logistics costs based on that, but their factory is 200 miles away in the middle of freakin’ nowhere and your logistics costs are 30% higher. And so on.

The reality is that mega-savings don’t exist in big, strategic, established categories where experts have been digging for savings year over year. Generally speaking, you’re not going to find more than 10% to 12% in an established category, and you’re only going to find that level of savings once every five years on average, and only using strategic sourcing decision optimization which looks at the global category and all the viable options that go beyond what a buyer can consider or an auction can capture.

And once those big savings are found in the category, the next round of savings will only come from supplier development (and that’s why you have to cycle through all your categories over a three to five year period with optimization as the next round of deep 10%+ savings won’t come until new innovations materialize that more progressive suppliers adopt that can allow for the next level of savings in the category). And that’s why it’s often better to invest in long term value generation than short term savings. Big savings rarely materialize in the short term but investments in long term value, like investments in solid companies and products, almost always pay dividends year over year over year.

So, with the greedy Wall Street mindset running corporate America these days, will we ever return to “Once Upon a Time …”?