Category Archives: Market Intelligence

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!

We Finally Know the Source of the AI Buzzword Bullsh!t!

The Agentic Software Service Hyper Optimized Learning Engine custom built for drowning the World Wide Web in soundbite and buzzword marketing bullsh!t centered on AI, or the A.S.S.H.O.L.E. for short! (With fervent thanks to the esteemed Arthur Mesher for delving deep into the depths to uncover the source of this madness!)

Technology Project Failure is at an all-time high, boosted by the recent AI failure rates (which are on the rise as almost half of AI initiatives are being scrapped in process, see CIO Dive), and while the hype should be subsiding (and shifting to the next hype cycle), it’s now hitting us harder and faster in what should be its death throes than any hype cycle that has come before.

The AI marketing onslaught is coming so hard and fast that it’s impossible to imagine how so much new soundbite, buzzword, FOMO, and FUD content can be produced so fast and so overwhelming to the point that it seems humanly impossible. And that’s because it is. It’s not coming from humans, it’s coming from the A.S.S.H.O.L.E.. As we have indicated in our previous posts on Gen-AI LLMs, one of the valid uses for Gen-AI is mass content digestion, search, summarization, and generation.

It appears that one of these systems was customized to ingest all of the initial human-generated AI BS and trained to spew out marketing soundbites, social media posts, articles, and other forms of web content ad nauseum and to continually ingest new content on the subject to create even more content, including AI-generated BS content from other AI systems that tried to copy the original A.S.S.H.O.L.E..

And even though it doesn’t matter, since apparently every LLM can be trained to emulate the original, the only question that remains is, who currently owns the source engine, what LLM was it originally built on, and what LLM is it running on now? This is obviously the industry’s best kept secret. I hope someone who has gotten to the bottom of this will let us know the full story of the A.S.S.H.O.L.E.. Considering the intellectual and financial pain and suffering it has caused, we deserve to know the truth!

For those interested, since I’m sure LinkedIn will disappear Art’s post if it hasn’t already, here’s the original. (And the Gartner rant ain’t half bad either!)

The Lack of Adoption of Analytics is NOT Complicated!

According to THE PROPHET, the reason that we’ve never seen a breakout $100M+ pure-play (spend) analytics vendor is it’s complicated. (Source: LinkedIn)

But the reality is that it’s really not.

First of all, approximately one third of all multi-nationals are headquartered in the US. In other words, one third of global enterprise is based out of the US, where the strategic decisions are made. Let’s say that again, one third!

Secondly, and this is the real explanation, in our age of participation trophies and only focusing on the positive (when there really isn’t any), no one is willing to state the truth, and that is most of the employees responsible for strategic [spend] analysis are just too math stupid.

Analytics, at its core, requires good mathematics skills and, with traditional analytics applications, good computer skills.

However, the US, where many multi-nationals are based, consistently ranks in the lower part of the OECD international rankings and is currently 34th in the PISA [out of 79 scored countries] (with an average numeracy score of 249, below the TOTAL OECD average of 263, with over 1/3 of its adult population at level 1! This means they can’t even do basic arithmetic and problem solving [or calculate a tip FFS, but that does explain why they believed their administration when they lied and said other countries pay the tariffs] — and that’s the average business employee in the US, since anyone with a level 2 on the OECD can likely fake it in a STEM career in the US.

As for THE PROPHET‘s reasons as to why Spend Analysis has consistently underperformed the hype:

  • While 3/4 of solutions have always been reporting in drag, I’ve been highlighting at least a dozen Best of Breed solutions consistently for the past decade. They have existed for the past 20 years, you just had to look (and understand what to look for. But this site did a great job of helping you with that!)
  • Yes, scale came at the cost of dumbing down the UX (for the US market in particular)!
  • Unfortunately there is no faster way to die as a Spend Analysis vendor then to get scooped up by a (mega) suite or a Big X Comsultancy.
  • Actually, the analytics and optimization is not powerful or complex enough in most solutions. Again, the problem is that the vendor didn’t add incremental levels of simplification (i.e. dumbing down) so each user could take advantage of it at their mathematical (in)competency level.

But the real reason, as hinted above, is that employees resisted these advanced spend analytics solutions because they knew they didn’t have the mathematical skills to use them. (Which the US Education System should be blamed for [and why it should be fixed, not dismantled], not the employees, unless those employees went to University and chose not to take math courses to try and make up for the failings of the public education system they were subjected to.)

As for THE PROPHET‘s signals that the times they are a changin’:

  1. Good + Cheap = Dangerous
    Faster? Check! Cheaper? Check! Smarter? Well … Ask Woody!
  2. Analytics is Merging with Execution
    This is key for adoption of analytics — do it when you need it and apply the findings right away.
  3. Intake, Orchestration and Agentic Tech
    I guess I have to say it again!
    ????? ????????????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ????!
    When what we really need is a Revenge of the Nerds! (If the USA even has any left!)

However, the real reason that we may finally be entering a new era in analytics is the following:

4. Most companies are trying to stave off bankruptcies as a result of US trade, market, etc. decisions that have already bankrupted many SMEs and they now realize that analytics is a key part of that solution. You can’t optimize spend you don’t understand, or understand the impact of a sudden 145% increase in tariffs if you don’t understand how much you are sourcing from the country in question.

Accept It! You ARE Selecting Obsolete Tech.

But that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

In a recent LinkedIn article, Joel said that digital procurement is like a pie eating contest, and while we’re not sure we agree, he made one valid point:

The system you select is already heading toward obsolescence the moment you go live.

But it’s worse than that!

1) It’s heading toward obsolescence from the minute the implementation starts … you have no idea the technical debt in the systems you are being sold today from the build fast, scale faster, fix it later mentality infused by VCs and most PE firms!

2) It was probably obsolete when you selected it, especially if you chose a vendor who has been leading the same Gartner and Forrester maps for 10 years with no significant changes to their product or platform!

3) Even worse, chances are that the process you digitized makes you outdated anyways and keeps you that way — digitization is the best time for identifying not how things work, but the way they should work to maximize efficiency and minimize risk (and that’s not, as we continually point out, jumping on the Gen AI / Agentric AI bandwagon and being blinded by the hype).

4) Moreover, you really shouldn’t need different channels (i.e. completely different apps) to source, just different workflows and interfaces, but since most providers don’t do more than one category (among indirect, direct, services, capex projects, etc.), you likely need MORE apps. Moreover, few suites have more than one or two modules that are truly best of breed (despite their claims), so if you don’t plan for the constant upgrades and bolts ons … well … you won’t be ready when you have to select and implement one quick, and then you’ll have even more obsolescence than you planned for.

That doesn’t mean that you should give up on modern tech because it’s all obsolete, because it’s not, and the good vendors recognize this and continually update their tech to minimize the obsolescence. It does mean that you need to be very careful when selecting your tech to find a solution that has minimal technical debt, is beyond where you are at today with respect to the processes it supports, and is being continually enhanced by the vendor. If the vendor offers a truly best of breed solution, is beyond where you are today, and has a track record of keeping up with best practices, and best tech, it’s likely a good vendor.

Especially if the tech today is considerably enhanced against the tech it had two to three years ago (which you should be able to determine by looking up old demo videos, articles, independent reviews, etc.).

However, if you can’t tell any difference between the (mega) suite tech being pushed at you today vs. what the (mega) suite tech were advertising five years ago, then you should probably stay away. Far, Far Away.

Everyone In the Procurement Ecosystem Exists For a Reason — But Do You Know Why …

… and more importantly, when you should use them?

Joël Collin-Demers recently commented on a LinkedIn post that

Everyone in the ecosystem exists for a reason. Big consulting and analyst firms are great tools for organizations in particular contexts (e.g. a big firm is a great way to get a lot of smart people deployed on a problem quickly).

The point I’m trying to make is that we tend to over-rely on big consulting and analysts.

And he was correct. Big X consultancies, niche consultancies, implementors/integrators, analyst firms, suite vendors, best of breed vendors, etc. were all started for a reason and continue to exist for a reason. Understanding both of these helps you determine when you should use them, why, and what you should (and should not) expect. In this post on where we asked If You Really Want Success … or Just Say You Do, we made it abundantly clear that Analyst Firms, Big X, Implementors, and even Vendors (beyond a certain point) ultimately don’t care about your success because

Big Analyst Firms (that produce the pay-to-play maps) make money pushing the solutions of the vendors that pay them the most, not on making sure those solutions solve your problems. While there was a time you could always count on the best unbiased advice from an analyst firm, that was long ago. Ever since the first big vendor realized it was faster (and cheaper) to buy influence by sponsoring reports or cutting big research access POs, the end of unbiased recommendations began. (And it’s more your fault than the vendor’s because you came to expect free reports, but no one can work for free, which means the vendors had to pick up the entire cost, which means those reports say what the vendors sponsoring them want said, not what you need to hear.)

Big X need to keep their benches employed addressing your problems, and if a vendor’s solution took care of everything, what else would they do? This doesn’t mean they are going to screw you, but it does mean they are only going to address what you ask them to, that they are going to try to do it with a diamond/platinum/sycophant partner to keep their top-tier consultancy status, and assign the weakest resources they think they can get away with to keep their top tier resources free to top paying clients. Moreover, as we discussed in our article on When Should You Use Big X, the vast majority of Big X did not start out as IT consultancies or Procurement Tech shops and this is still their weakest area (as the “wild west” tech players and boutique consultancies get the majority of best talent), so even if they are doing their best, it’s only so good. (Compared to their core strengths, which, as we said in the latter post, you’d be foolish NOT to take advantage of.) The reality is, many Big X are now mostly body shops who have to keep those junior consultants employed while keeping their big software partners happy. And that’s a difficult balancing act, especially considering their overheads and the luxurious lifestyle these partners have grown accustomed to.

Implementors make money implementing solutions — if that solution solved everything for the next five to ten years, how would they keep their bench employed as well. Now, they are going to make sure it’s implemented to the best of their ability, but since they weren’t hired as a consultancy, they aren’t going to be the ones to tell you when a solution is not the best for a certain task — they are going to do what they are paid to do (so that, when you realize you need another solution in a year and then use the same Big X again to recommend it, they get that contract too).

Vendors need to keep their investors happy, which means securing sales as fast as possible, not ensuring they are the perfect fit and/or outlining where they will fall short. Now, of everyone in the ecosystem, they definitely want you to succeed, but the reality is, they can only spend so much time on you because they took too much money from investors at too high a multiple, aren’t growing at the expected rate, and the management and sales team risk being fired (and the entire company being shut down) if they don’t continually increase the rate they bring on new customers (whether they can reasonably support them or not). It’s all about “what their solution can do for you” and not about “is their solution right for you”.

And so on.

Niche Consultancies are the best IF they do not have preferred vendor partnerships (which require a certain level of business to maintain) as they know they have to perform to get their next contract, but these are few and far between. And even though it is critically important, almost no one does Project Assurance for their ProcureTech project (and then wonders why we have had Two and a Half Decades of Project Failure).

Short story, everyone in the ecosystem exists to make money off of YOU. While that’s not a bad thing IF they provide value (and heck, I’ll happily give you a dollar if I am guaranteed two dollars in return in a reasonable time frame), not all of them do … and those that do are not equal in the value they provide (primarily due to conflicting pressures, not intent). Until you understand that, your returns will be limited.

The important thing to remember is that if you’re just starting your best-in-class Procurement journey, you typically don’t need an end to end suite, and if you’re Procurement maturity is still elementary school, you don’t need a 7-figure mega suite when a low 6-figure mini suite, which can be implemented in 1/4 to 1/6 the time, can get you 80% of potential savings. Especially when this level of savings will take you 3-6 years to realize. Then, when you’re ready (and know how to get the additional ROI the mega-suite can provide), you can upgrade to the seven figure mega-suite in confidence you’ll achieve the same level of ROI. (Instead of being the next ProcureTech disaster. And while you may believe in a beautiful disaster, there is no such thing where tech is involved.)