Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Roll Up The Space To … Lose!

Over the past decade, a number of the big PE firms in our space decided that a “roll up the space to win” strategy was the right approach and bought a large number, and in some cases dozens, of assets in the Procurement space globally. Vista, Main, KKR, Accel-KKR, and Thoma Bravo all followed this strategy in the hopes that with enough assets, they’d control enough of the space that controls the transactions to give them a long term home inside a significant number of major corporations.

It was a great plan, and a great play at the time (as it worked out well for them), but one that may backfire for anyone who is late to the party as the Age of AI, coupled with the realization that bit pushing applications don’t cost very much anymore, means that these nine and ten figure plays are not going to maintain their market dominance, or their income stream that depends on seven figure annual subscriptions, for much longer.

As per THE PROPHET‘s recent piece on An LP, an AI Builder, and a PE Advisor Walk into a Bar, the time for the traditional players is coming to an end — especially the mega-suites that thought they could charge 7-figure license fees until the end of time. Whether or not Agentic AI can fully replace them (they can’t, by the way), the price compression is changing the game. (Especially when you’ve been warned that Now is NOT a Great Time to Buy … a Mega-Suite.)

If you don’t have time to read the piece, THE PROPHET believes that Agentic AI is going to effectively boil the ocean and cook all of the traditional plays, charging high six and seven figures a year for relatively simple tasks that can be mostly automated by these Agentic AI solutions for a tenth of the cost (until compute costs skyrocket, but still, that’s significant downward price pressure now) in the process. If you don’t trust AI, even better, since applications that were built on modern stacks in the last 5 years with the ability to wrap discrete tasks in micro-services and orchestrate them into dynamically configurable workflows that exactly match your needs, cost about a fifth of what these big plays do and do more for you. Either way, as has been indicated many times on this blog over the past, unless your Source to Pay needs are in the top 10%, you probably don’t need to be paying more than 250K for your Source to Pay.

Now, no one can see the future with clarity, everything is in flux, and we could both be wrong, but all software (like hardware) depreciates with time, tech always advances faster than we would like to think, organizations in unregulated market places under severe cost pressure are always looking for ways to cut costs, and those providers who are running on old stacks that are hard to adapt and support aren’t going to be able to keep up or keep costs low enough. There’s going to be a massive shift, and any major players not in the public sector (where contracts tend to extend beyond our professional lifetimes due to the slow pace of change in government organizations) are on the verge of shifting out of business.

So, like THE PROPHET, when it comes to the continued dominance of traditional SaaS in a big PE portfolio, I’m not buying it either.

Maybe If Procurement Had Embraced Magic and Logic Decades Ago …

… it would not be in such dire straits today.

The Procurement Ledger recently ran an article on Agility with Purpose which ran an interview with Jeanette Hübsch, a Global Procurement Leader and Senior Consultant with Proxima, who said that in Marketing Procurement, agility isn’t just a buzzword—it’s a necessity because the landscape shifts constantly with evolving consumer trends, digital innovation, and now AI-driven content creation. Procurement must move beyond being a cost controller; it needs to be a business enabler, a partner, and a source of innovation. And she’s right.

But she goes on to say that in indirect procurement, disruptions don’t always look like delayed shipments—they might be sudden campaign pivots, regulatory changes, or shifting budgets. Agility means being able to respond without slowing the business down and to accomplish this her focus is on building an adaptable supplier ecosystem—trusted partners with modular contracts, alternative sourcing strategies, and the ability to flex with us. Strong relationships, clarity, and scenario planning make a big difference.

In other words, it seems that marketing has understood what Procurement needs, and has needed, for at least the last two decades, but yet it’s still the sacred cow in most organizations that Procurement is not allowed to touch (when Procurement should be designed around good strategies that come from good Marketing Provider Management) and be allowed to shoot any scared cow ready for pasture.

Thought leaders have been promoting the embracement of good procurement by Marketing and marketing flexibility by Procurement for at least two decades now (and we first started talking about it in our two-part piece on Magic and Logic [Part I and Part II] two decades ago), especially since Decideware (founded in 1999 in Australia), one of the leaders in Marketing Procurement Technology, was just starting to break into the North American market at that time.

And even if they were a little slow on the uptake, then it should have been adopted when some thought leaders tried to make it vogue in the mid 2010s. A decade ago I penned a two-part piece on what to do if Marketing Mayhem Got You Down? Maybe it’s time to master the Marketing Way (Part 1 and Part 2) and ran a two-part series by Brian Seipel (of Source One, which was acquired by Corcentric) on why you should Ditch the Pepsi Blues, Already: Become a Marketing Procurement Asset (Part I and Part II). By then Decideware was taking marketing magic to a whole new level, but still marketing procurement (and the best practices it could bring) was still being largely ignored, even when marketing needed procurement more than ever. (In fact, Marketing recognition of Procurement wasn’t until mid 2019, and within a year COVID had shut everything down.)

While marketing suppliers (i.e. advertising agencies) are often very different from custom manufactured part suppliers (i.e. factories), and the categories need to be managed differently because of that, in a world where supply chains are being broken daily by geopolitics, unrest, and natural disasters, both require agility, creativity, multiple relationships and multi-sourcing, risk monitoring, mitigation, and management, and the ability to react as needed. The underlying best practices required by both sides are similar in theory and the lessons each side can teach the other can make both sides stronger.

So, if you want to be a better Procurement Pro, think like a Marketer, and if you truly want to be an effective Marketer, include some Procurement thinking. (And read the full interview with Jeanette Hübsch.) Remember that value has a cost side as well as a revenue side and both parties MUST manage both.

Sourcing Excellence IS Optimization!

Sourcing Excellence requires optimization. Not AI. Optimization. We have finally reached a point where nothing else will get you there.

And Sourcing Excellence requires Paul Martyn. You need someone who has built and led programs, evaluated and employed multiple tools, and has the decades of experience to bring the insights you need instantly to the table. With many of the sourcing optimization greats (who founded CombineNet, VerticalNet Tigris, Trade Extensions, etc.) retired or moved on, the number of people left who have over two decades of practical experience are countable on your fingers (just like the number of analysts who have been consistently covering this space for two decades). Paul Martyn is one of the few, true, optimization masters left. So if you want to save your supply chain, reach out to Paul.

If you want to understand why, as well as why sourcing excellence truly requires optimization (as it’s time has finally come), since I know you won’t listen to me, read Paul’s ongoing Sourcing Excellence series, which just saw Part 11 published.

  1. Part 1: (Optimization is Thinking)
  2. Part 2: (Optimization Frames Reality)
  3. Part 3: (Optimization is More than a Capability)
  4. Part 4: (Optimization Changed the Game)
  5. Part 5: (Optimization Must Always Be On)
  6. Part 6: (AI is NOT Yet Fly in Procurement)
  7. Part 7: (Innovation is Just an Input)
  8. Part 8: (Orchestration is the Key)
  9. Part 9: (Value is a Game)
  10. Part 10: (Constraints Dictate)
  11. Part 11: (Constraints Vary)

Another Reason To Avoid AI: NO ECONOMIC GROWTH COMES FROM AI!

A recent study by Goldman Sachs, summarized in Fortune, found no meaningful relationship between AI and productivity at the economy wide level/.

Think carefully about that. 450 Billion, which is more than the GDP of over 100 countries, was sunk (and I mean sunk) into AI last year — for the net result of ZERO economic growth. For 1/6 of that, every college in the US could be free — and you’d have 20 Million smarter adults with no student debt dragging them down, causing them stress, and zapping from their productivity. For 1/12 of that, you could eliminate all the hunger and food insufficiency in the US. For 1/50 of that, you could re-open Alcatraz and provide a King with his own special castle and his own moat.

In other words, there are so many better things that could have been done with that money — including training your people to be more productive, modernizing processes for efficiency, and building deterministic tech that actually works at 1/100 to 1/10000 of the compute power in a data center that’s already powered up.

The only company “winning” is Nvidia, who provides the chips, which means that most of the money is going to its factories in Taiwan and South Korea, and those are the only countries that are actually winning while Americans, who were laid off in droves last year, get poorer, colder and hotter, hungrier and thirstier (as AI sucks up all the energy, which is now not available for heating or air conditioning, and all the water for cooling, which is now not available for drinking or farming).

Think about that the next time you think an overpriced clod or chat, j’ai pété wrapper, even if hyped up as an AI Employee by the A.S.S.H.O.L.E., is going to solve all your problems. Especially since all the Age of AI has done for us is make us dumber, poorer, and less prepared for what is to come next than any age that has come before.

There’s No Cost Management UNLESS It’s By Organizational Design

Cost Management is what thought leaders and analysts have been talking about for 25+ years in Procurement (and is something that has been discussed on SI since its founding in 2006), but not something that is typically realized.

It’s more than just strategic sourcing, contract [lifecycle] management to capture the agreements and obligations, e-procurement, and 3-way matching for cost assurance (and obtainment), but rarely does an organization even achieve these (and that’s why up to 30 to 40 cents of every negotiated savings dollar never materializes).

It’s even more than including Procurement in NPD and NPI (which is where 80% to 90% of the cost is baked in), or in supply chain / logistics network (re) design, which still isn’t the case in the majority of organizations.

It’s a fundamental organizational realignment from traditional budgeting, pricing, forecasting and spend planning based on historical spend and revenue to dynamic budgeting, pricing, forecasting and spend management based on real-time market data as categories come up for sourcing or renewal, internal organizational spend increases or decreases (on hires or fires; internal development projects; assets are acquired, fully paid off, or divested) where budgets are defined based on real-time market data and updated forecasts when a sourcing event is kicked-off, pricing is adjusted based on actual costs and expected market tolerance to standard margins/mark-ups, forecasts are re-run using advanced curve fitting models with the most recent data, and spend planning is adjusted based on all of the prior updates.

The “when a sourcing event is kicked-off” is the key — not when it’s planned, when it needs to happen because the company has decided to introduce a new product, accelerate a planned event due to an expected demand or cost increase, or a supply chain disruption has necessitated emergency replacement of supply.

The harsh reality is that if a chip or RAM factory was just wiped out by a natural disaster or fire (which happens about once a decade), prices are going up. Doesn’t matter what you spent last year, this year is a whole new type of ball game — especially if supply routes become cut off and your only options are longer sea routes, air routes, or new (already overloaded) suppliers in new regions that aren’t cut off.

And any savings or cost avoidance success needs to be measured against the average market price at the time.

But, as pointed out by this article in Supply Chain Digest on how to get From Supply Chain Cost Cutting to Cost Management, this is not what happens every time a market shock hits, executive pressure rises, and the organization is told to take costs out fast.

As the article continues, the danger is not the mandate itself. It is what repeated, reactive cost-cutting does to the supply chain’s long-term health. It can lead to diminishing returns on cost cuts, weaken operational effectiveness, and narrow options the next time volatility strikes.

And it’s all due to a hidden problem with the traditional approach. Namely static budgets create the wrong conversation. Because, when supply chain performance is judged primarily against an absolute dollar budget, leaders often get pulled into debates about compliance instead of outcomes and, even worse absolute-dollar metrics can also steer attention toward the biggest cost line items, even when those costs enable profitable growth.

According to the author, the solution is to ditch static dollar budgets, assess performance through an adaptive lens that aligns with margin assessment, and report costs as a percentage of revenue. Which is great advice, but doesn’t really help you transition the organization to being cost management (vs the current method of cost mandating that is completely divorced from reality and regularly results in organizational failure) focussed.

That’s where the Busch-Lamoureux Exact Purchasing model comes into play. When you align around exact purchasing, and segment your spend into the pocket cube, you realize that for all of your high complexity, high risk, and/or high impact categories, you need to either architect the cost model and the supply chain around it, monitor market conditions in real time (and possibly trigger [re]-sourcing events as a result), or continuously monitor input pricing as well as the price points an average consumer will pay across your markets at different volume levels and adjust your cost and revenue model accordingly.

You no longer plan around fixed costs and prices for the next year, that never happens, but around evolving market realities. And if your price point adjustments are limited, then you know you need to scale back on service commitments, marketing during a downward market trend (when consumers don’t have time to buy), or overpriced sales personnel just adding to expenses with no identifiable return. i.e. Spend is reallocated as appropriate to keep the organizational profitable and productive during extreme events or market conditions while other companies can’t adapt due to lack of category management structure and organizational alignment around what is actually being bought as they still operate off of a spreadsheet that represents a fictional model of non-reality.