Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Myth-busting 2025 2015 Procurement Predictions and Trends! Part 1

The ambitious starting pumping these out late November / early December because, apparently, everyone wants to be first … to say almost the same thing they said last year (and the year before that … and the year before that … ) because, if they just keep making the same prediction, it will eventually come true … right?

However, just like the primary conference topics haven’t changed much in the last decade (and, as we pointed out earlier last year, just check out our 2014 series on The “Future” of Procurement and “Future” Trends and you’ll notice the topics are 90% the same as what were discussed last year … it’s only the current “hype” cycle technologies that change), neither have the predictions. the doctor reviewed 71 predictions / trends across 8 articles, and they neatly fell into 10 topic areas, with vary little differentiation between them. 9 of these were hot a decade ago. Heck, these 9 were being hailed as the core/future of Procurement two decades ago! The only difference is that the top prediction/trend just replaced one technology for another.

To make it abundantly clear how nothing has changed in the prediction world, and how very little is going to change in the Procurement world, we’re going to take the major predictions one-by-one and inject a little harsh reality. Often the dream is very nice, and sometimes the dream should be the reality, but, as we know, what “should be” and what “is” are often two very different situations! And no amount of wishing shall make the two meet. (Only hard work can do that!)

If you want to dive deep, the first 2025 prediction/trend articles that the doctor found are the following eight:

And the predictions they deliver fall into the following 10 categories:

  • AI
  • Category Management
  • Cost vs. Value
  • Data
  • Risk & Compliance
  • Strategic Value
  • Sustainability
  • Supplier Management
  • Talent
  • Technology & Digital Transformation

And if you simply replace “AI” with “Analytics”, you can go and dig up some classic articles on 2015 Procurement Predictions and Trends and realize what you read 10 years ago isn’t that much different than what is being pushed today. After all, it’s likely that the newer Procurement generation didn’t read any of it (and didn’t get any of it in training because there are no training budgets anymore) and it will all be new to them and, if you just change the buzzwords, it all sounds new, right? Right?

However, we’ll save you the trouble. We’ll summarize what the major predictions are, how accurate they are, and what will really happen in 2025. Remember, we’ve been around this space for 25 years and we know that the more they proclaim things will change …

One of these things is not like the other — it’s the right choice!

This originally published March 6 (2024).  It is being reposted due to the criticality of the subject matter (and the fact that One Trillion was wasted on services last year).

Note the Sourcing Innovation Editorial Disclaimers and note this is a very opinionated rant!  Your mileage will vary!  (And not about any firm in particular.)

Three bids for that spend analytics project from the three leading Big X firms come in at 1 Million. One bid for that spend analytics project from a specialized niche consultancy you pulled out of the hat for bid diversity comes in at 250 Thousand. Which one is right?

Those of you who only partially paid attention to the education Sesame Street was trying to impart upon you when you were growing up will simply remember the “one of these things is not like the other” song and think that any of the bids from the Big X firm is right and the niche consultancy is wrong because it’s different, and therefore must be thrown out because it’s too low when, in fact, it’s just as likely that the three bids from the Big X firms that are wrong and the bid from the niche consultancy that was right.

Those of us who paid attention knew that Sesame Street was trying to show us how to detect underlying similarities so we could properly cluster objects for further analysis. What we should have learned is that the Big X bids were all the same, built on the same assumption, and can be compared equally. And that the outlier bid needed further investigation — a further investigation that can only be undertaken against an appropriately sized set of sample set of bids from other specialized niche consultancies to compare against. And without that sample set of bids, you can’t properly evaluate the lower bid, which, the doctor can tell you, is just as likely to be closer to correct than what could be wildly overpriced Big X bids.  (Newer firms often have newer tech and methods — and if these are the right methods and tech for your problem … )

As per our recent post, if you want to get analytics and AI right, most of these guys don’t have the breadth and depth of expertise they claim to have (as most don’t have the educational background to know just how broad, deep, and advanced AI and analytics can get, especially when you dig deep into the math and computer science and all of the variable models and strengths and weaknesses, and instead are trained on what is essentially marketing content from AI and analytics providers). In the group that sells you, there will be a leader who is a true expert (and worth his or her weight in platinum), a few handpicked lieutenants who are above average and run the projects, and a rafter of juniors straight out of private college with more training in how to dress, talk, and follow orders than training in actual analytics … and no guarantee they even have any real university level mathematics beyond basic analysis in operational research (and thus a knowledge of what analytics is and isn’t and can and can’t do).  And unless you know what you need, and why, you can’t judge the response.  (Furthermore, you can’t expect them to figure out your problem and goals with only partial information!)

While there was a time big analytics projects were (multi) million dollar projects, that was twenty years ago when Spend Analysis 1.0 was still hitting the market; when there were limited tools for data integration, mapping, cleansing, and enrichment; and when there weren’t a lot of statistics on average savings opportunities across internal and external spend categories. Now we have mature Spend Analysis 3.0 technologies (some taking steps towards spend analysis 4.0 technologies); advanced technologies for automatic data integration, mapping, cleansing, and even enrichment; deep databases on projects and results by vertical and industry size; extensive libraries for out-of-the-box analytics across categories and potential opportunities; and a whole toolkit for spend analysis that didn’t exist two decades ago. This new toolkit, built by best of breed vendors used, and sometimes [co-]owned by these best of breed niche consultancies (that don’t try to do everything, and definitely don’t pretend they can), allows modern spend analysis projects to be done ten times as efficiently and effectively, in the hands of a master — a master that isn’t necessarily on your project if you hire a Big X or Mid-Sized Consultancy without doing your homework, vetting the proposal, and vetting the people. [See when should you be using Big X.]

In contrast, a dedicated niche consultancy should have all these tools, and only have masters on the project who do these projects day in and day out. Compared to the bigger consultancies who don’t specialize in these projects, which will have a team of juniors using the manual playbook from the early 2000s, and one lieutenant to guide them. That’s often why sometimes their project bids are five times as much — and why you should be inviting multiple niche best-of-breed consultancies to bid on your project as well as multiple Big X consultancies (including those that are truly focusing on analytics and AI, and you can identify some of these by their recent acquisitions in the area) and be focusing in just as much on the six figure bids for the one that provides the best value, not just the seven figure Big X bids.  (And, FYI, if you invite enough Big X, you might find some come in at six figures and not seven because they have acquired the newer tech, took the time to understand your request, and figured out how they could get you the same value for less cost, leaving you funds for the follow on project where you should consider the Big X!)

(This is also the case for implementations. The Big X always have a rafter on the bench to assign to any project you give them, but there’s no guarantee any of them have ever implemented the system you chose before, or if they did, no guarantee they’ve ever connected it to the systems you need to connect to. You need specialists if you want a new system implemented as cost effectively as possible, especially if its a narrow focused specialist application and not a big enterprise application the Big X always implements. At the end of the day, even if you’re paying those specialists 500 or more an hour because getting a system up in 2 months at 40K is considerably better than a small team of juniors taking 4 months at 200 an hour and a total cost of 80K.  But again, mileage will vary — if the solution you select is a Big X partner, then the Big X will be best.  If it’s a solution they never heard of, you will need to evaluate multiple bids from multiple parties. )

Remember, where any group of vendors on the same page are concerned, All of us is as dumb as One of us!

Don’t fall for the Collectivism MindF6ck! that if multiple parties agree on something, that’s the right answer!  the doctor does NOT want to do say it again, but since a month still is not going by where he’s hearing about niche consultancies being thrown out for “being too cheap” or “obviously not understanding the problem” (which means the enterprise throwing them out is too uninformed and not recognizing that the Big X bids could just as likely the outliers because they aren’t inviting enough expert consultancies to the table), apparently he has to keep writing (and screaming) this truth. (the doctor isn’t saying that you can’t get a million dollars of value from some of these consultancies, just that you won’t by giving them a project they are not suited for;  again, see when should you use big X to identify when that million dollar project will generate a five million ROI — it’s people doing these projects at the end of the day, and where are those people?)

Remember, most of these firms got big in management, or accounting and tax, or marketing and sales consulting, not technology consulting. The only reason these big consultancies started offering these services is because of the amount of money flowing into technology, money which they want, but while the best of the best of the best in more traditional accounting, management, and marketing fields flocked to them, the best of the best in technology flocked to startups and c00l big tech firms  Now, some of these firms double downed, went and recruited those people, built small teams, learned, bought tech companies to expand the team, and now have great offerings in a number of areas.  But we have tens of thousands of tech companies for a reason, not everyone can build every type of technology, and not everyone can be an expert in every type of technology.  So while they will have expertise in some areas, they just can’t have expertise in all areas.  No one can.  Find the best provider for you.  Sometimes it will be Big X.  Sometimes Mid-Market.  Sometimes Niche.  It all depends on your problem at hand.)

And yes, sometimes the niche vendor will be wrong and woefully undersize the project or your needs.  But as per the above, if you don’t do give them a chance, and deep dive into their bid, how will you know?

 

Did you ever try eating a mitten? the doctor bets some of those clients did! (He feels you’re not all there if you think glorified reporting projects should still cost One Million Dollars by default and might actually try to eat your mittens! [Joking, but you get the point.]  Deep analytics projects that require the most advanced tech, especially AI tech, will cost a lot, but standard spend analysis, sales analysis, etc. where we have been iterating and improving on the technology for two decades should not.)

The Supply Chain of Supply Chain Talent is Not Only Broken … It’s Running On Empty!

This originally posted on February 16 (2024).  It is being reposted in case you missed it due to its importance as the talent problem is only getting worse (and “AI” is not going to make it better).

A recent article in Forbes noted that The Supply Chain of Supply Chain Talent Is Broken, which it is, and has been for well over a decade. The problems started back with the global first world truck driver shortages back in the early 2000s, but the real problems were much deeper and hidden from view due to the fact supply chains were otherwise running smoothly and no one was looking behind the curtain or shining a light into the dark recesses of the supply chain.

Why? Because of the rampant digitization of procurement, logistics, and supply chain over the past twenty years, a time when globalization reached its peak, conflict was at a minimum, inflation was in the rear-view mirror, and natural disasters were still manageable, supply chains just worked. Predictable processes, routes, costs, and flows allowed simple systems to manage the supply chains almost automatically. Supply Chains didn’t need traditional supply chain talent to run; they needed buyers, logistics managers, inventory operations, and compliance personnel who could use systems — IT geeks ruled the day!

At the same time, seasoned supply chain professionals — negotiators, logistics professionals, and inventory/warehouse managers — were retiring in droves, and no one was replacing them. More importantly, no one was replacing them because there was no perceived need. These were the individuals who where doing supply chains in the 80s and 90s, before modern systems managed everything, when there were still lots of regulations to deal with (as the EU was still forming), when you didn’t always have container ships available (or easy container transportation to all locales), and when you would have to know, by rote, who to call when a truck wasn’t at the factory or the dock for a pick-up. When you had to do everything by phone and fax, because email was a luxury; when you had to deal with dozens of import/export regulations (and know how to create the reports by hand), and how to manage logistics scheduling on paper, especially when availability of certain carriers or personnel would change by the day. When you had to truly know how supply chain operations worked end to end, and not just push buttons on a virtual screen.

But then they retired, and no one replaced them. Even worse, no one was recruited to replace them. The organizations saw no need, since the systems did everything, the EU and harmonized regulations across regions made trade easy, and the big global carriers managed logistics for them. As long as they had negotiators, system operators, outsourced carriers, and outsourced consultants to do the rest, who cared? They certainly didn’t.

Furthermore, because there was no need in the organizations, people who studied Operations Research and might have went into Supply Chain went elsewhere, and as demand shallowed, so did students, but more importantly, so did apprenticeships. Now, with disruptions on the rise, globalization retreating, inflation resurging, supply chains breaking due to slowdowns, (port) shutdowns, and double canal slowdowns/closures (Panama and Suez), and current systems not designed for the world today, there’s no one who can handle the current situation. And that’s why supply chains are broken, talent chains are broken, and most importantly, why they are empty.

All of this happened behind the scenes because no one was watching, no one was thinking about the future, and no one was doing a risk assessment or managing the risks that were destined to come. All despite the fact that natural disasters were on the rise, political tension was on the rise, and we were being warned that a pandemic was the top global risk for over a decade.

Now we are at a point where software alone won’t fix this, consultancies who don’t have talent either (despite telling you to go to China for two decades) won’t fix this, and hope won’t fix this. The only thing that will fix this is the re-introduction of supply chain apprenticeship programs, as noted by the Forbes article, along with the return of retirees with actual knowledge to mentor the new recruits, which is missed by the article. Most organizations, or consultancies, these days barely have enough talent to manage their own operations yet alone train a batch of new recruits on the side, especially if they didn’t live through the rise in global trade in the 80s and 90s. The retirees did, and they have the knowledge the consultancies, and modern systems, don’t. Along with new recruits, it is their (temporary) return that is needed to fix the supply chains.

Continuous Improvement is Needed Across the Board!

Risk is going up across the board.

Costs are about to go up across the board.

Supply is getting tight across the board.

Thus, organizations need to improve across the board.

But where do they start?

Good Question!

No Good Answers!

Regardless of how good an organization is doing, it needs to do better in:

  • cost
  • risk
  • supply assurance
  • supplier performance
  • MRO
  • sustainability
  • performance
  • etc.

But just like a solution provider can’t provide a solution that does everything (for everyone), an organization can’t tackle all of its problems at once.

So where does it start?

With efficiency.

Do a process analysis, identify where you are most inefficient, and install a modern technological solution to increase efficiency. At the end of the day, you can’t:

  • reduce cost
  • mitigate risk
  • increase supply assurance
  • improve supplier performance
  • enhance MRO
  • improve sustainability
  • enhance performance
  • etc.

without the time to do it. This means that any investment you make in improving efficiency and freeing up more of your people’s time will continue to return value day-over-day, month-over-month, and year-over-year.

As they become more efficient, they’ll become better at identifying what enhancements will make them even more efficient, and pursue those. With just a few enhancements, they’ll gain the time they need to apply their human intelligence to determine where they have the most to gain.

Quick wins are good, but continual wins are better, and that’s what efficiency delivers.

Forget Cost Reduction. It Ain’t Happenin’. Best you can hope for is Cost Avoidance!

Costs are going up. And since you spent decades, including a decade and a half where those of us who could carry the thought experiment to its logical conclusion told you not to, outsourcing everything you can to China and low-cost locales in Asia and Eastern Europe, there’s nothing you can do.

The sanctions on Russia, which are skyrocketing energy costs in parts of Europe, are raising prices.

The logistics challenges, as a result of lost capacity from perfectly good ships being scrapped during the Pandemic and a new requirement to sail around the capes again (Houthis in the Red Sea, droughts in Panama reducing canal capacity), is raising prices.

Just the threat of thumping tariffs from the incoming President in the US is already starting reciprocal threats and trade wars (because the billionaire the US elected doesn’t seem to understand it’s the working class people who pay the tariffs, not the countries being sourced from, and that tariffs are to prevent markets from being flooded with goods that citizens can buy at home … and shouldn’t be used to prevent citizens from getting goods they can’t get otherwise).

China is cutting off access to critical raw materials and rare earths, when it represents the majority of the global supply (and where Russia was second or third).

Year-over-year increases in natural disasters (which are only going to increase in frequency as the US abandons any efforts whatsoever to curb carbon and GHG emission and slow global warming) is destroying larger and larger portions of global crops annually while global population is still increasing.

We could go on, but you get the point. You’re not reducing cost anymore. The best you can do is control it, and that’s going to take all of the strategic sourcing strategies available to you, as well as the best sourcing platforms to make it happen.

Which means you need to focus on cost avoidance. More specifically, we mean reducing the amount you have to buy, not just mitigating expected cost increases through better buying practices. More specifically, we mean minimizing waste and eliminating the needs for a purchase in the first place. This means, among other things:

  • eliminating disposed/fire-sale inventory at end of life (and up-front buys)
    optimizing the production relative to the demand (and eliminating the bullwhip effect)
  • reducing defects AND returns
    defects cost money to process, even if the buyer gets credit; and returns cost a company many times what the product costs — the product needs to not only be defect free, but right for the customer
  • reducing MRO
    this involves not only buying only what you use, but only using what you really need;
    i.e. does the executive need to print out all the reports? probably not, and maybe it could be prevented with a one time buy of a second monitor or an iPad Pro
  • reducing services
    do you need your office cleaned every night? probably not! (and if your employees are that messy, tell them to grow up or get out); do you need PR services if you’re in enterprise to enterprise sales? most likely not! do you need an annual Big X operations review just because the former CEO always did it? definitely not! (you just need to identify your inefficiencies and get point-based help to remove them)
  • reducing long-term inventory
    long-term, not mid-term, and definitely not short term; we’re well aware that the move to JIT ultimately crippled manufacturers during the pandemic, and it was something we foresaw when we first advised you to stop offshoring everything, but that being said, if it typically takes 30 days to restock, given that there is often the option of airfreight in a worst case situation, more than 90 days inventory is likely excessive and costly; and if you’re holding inventory for 180 or 360 days, that’s too long, and too costly; optimizing inventory to sensible sizes reduces inventory cost as well as minimizing the chance of end-of-life/expired inventory that has to be trashed

In other words, you have to go beyond the buy to analyze if the buy is even needed in the first place, if the demand can be reduced (optimizing production to realistic projections, reducing demand for paper with tablets), if the quality/targeting can be improved to reduce returns, and so on. The only way you are going to save with certainty in the economy that is coming is to NOT SPEND IN THE FIRST PLACE!