Category Archives: Market Intelligence

We Want to Be a Smart Company — Is That It? Part I

We’ve read the dumb company: how to avoid the fork in the road (part 1 and part 2) and dead company walking: avoiding the graveyard (part 1, part 2, part 3, part 4, part 5, part 6, part 7 and part 8) articles, and the two installments of “we want to be a smart company” (part 1 and part 2), and we truly want to be a smart company, and we are taking the mistakes, and advice, to heart. Is there anything else we can do?

There’s always more you can do! However, there’s not much left to talk about that’s true across the board for all software companies. That being said, we can give you ten final pieces of advice that just may help if money is tight, leads are few, and sales are hard. Today, we’ll give you the first five.

01. Don’t Put Off Improvements / Hard Decisions You Know You Need to Do / Make

Fixing it later always takes longer than you think, and the timeframe multiplies the longer you wait! If you need to rip and replace part of the platform core for scalability, start as soon as you realize that it needs to be done. If your target customers aren’t educated enough to realize why they need your product, start investing in a series of educational content pieces of different forms to get them there. If you need to cut the marketing and sales deadweight, do so ASAP. The longer you wait, the more it hurts you and them. Doing it early allows you to give them a fair notice period and time to help them find a more suitable role.

02. Chop the Dead Wood — especially in Management & the C-Suite

Refocus the dollars on the developers, content creators, and solution-focussed sales people who are actually generating value. the doctor can’t say this enough. You wouldn’t believe how many startups in tech have been dragged into oblivion by an overweighted inappropriate management team (because the investors thought big names would bring success) — but if they aren’t the right people for the job, or the job isn’t even needed to begin with, nothing could be further from the truth … and instead of being the buoyant striders intended to get you across the lake, they are the cement shoes that sink you to the bottom.

03. Tell the Truth, No Matter What

Especially around what your product does today, and especially especially with respect to anything asked by a customer. Any individual with a half a brain knows that no product does everything, and any individual with a brain can be educated as to why no product should and, more importantly, why they don’t want some of the features the Free RFP vendors are promoting (because it’s not feature, it’s function, and, more specifically, the function they need to do).

The reality is that a good customer will value the truth, especially when they hear so little of it these days among the lies, damn lies, statistics, Gen-AI, marketing buzzwords and hogwash. Moreover, they know they probably don’t need everything they ask for and definitely not day one (as it takes time to learn modules and suites and use them to full effect). They also know that most of the “wish list” gathered from across the organization is just stakeholders trying to be useful and they really only want the functionality to do their daily jobs, and, more importantly, the stakeholders will be happy if that core functionality is done well.

So if you’re missing a few things, that’s okay. The customers know there will always be pain (if work was always fun, people would want to work for as little as they could afford to), so as long as you can relieve the majority of, and the most common, pain, those customers will be quite happy to suffer a little aggravation here and there instead of the cluster(f6ck) migraine they currently have on a daily basis.

04. Sales Channel Reconsideration

Look at how you are selling now and think about if that is how, or the only way, you should be selling.

If you are not doing partner/channel sales, maybe you need to do partner/channel sales. If there is a niche consultancy advising clients on a daily basis with problems that your solution solves, maybe you should be training those consultants on how your solution can be used to solve the problems, training those consultants on how to install the solution, and then putting a partnership agreement in place for those consultants to sell the solution for you to their clients for which it is appropriate.

If you are relying mostly on partner/channel sales, and they aren’t coming in fast and furious like you hoped, maybe you need to step up direct sales. In the right circumstances the right partners will do wonders for sales, but if they are consultancies, it will be highly dependent on what customers come to them, since most niche consultancies still have to take what they can get (while the Big X take the lion’s share of projects, even those which they probably shouldn’t because they are already so busy trying to support so many clients with digital transformation projects, because any consultant who turns away any work at a Big X risks getting fired). So even if your consulting/services partner is your greatest champion, you can’t always rely on them to be a consistent source of sales.

05. Rethink Partnerships

Regardless if it is part of your strategy or not and what partners you do, or don’t, have today. It’s rare for a company to get it right out of the gate, or for the strategy that is right out of the gate to be the best one down the road as markets change, directions change, plans change, etc. If things are going well, you follow the if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. If things aren’t going well, you evaluate and rethink it. Your strategy/partners could still be the right strategy/partners, and it just needs more time for the strategy/relationships to take off, or it might be that you need a new strategy/relationship.

No consultancies or complementary offerings selling your solution? Why? We’ve mentioned time and time again that no solution is everything to everyone, and there’s always a complementary solution or service that can add value, even if it takes a bit of work to identify it. So if you don’t have a services / implementation partner trained and certified to sell for you, why not? And if you don’t have relationships with one or more complementary solutions with companies with a complementary culture and value, why not? Even if it is only the odd referral, it could help … and if you’re going up against a suite, and your solution is not, it could definitely help. (After all, most customers who need a “suite” really only need a few key modules, at least for the first few years.)

Alternatively, if you only have partners who filled your ears with sweet nothings until you agreed to be a partner and then gave you sweet nothing once the deal was inked, they are NOT partners, especially if right after the deal was inked they decided to partner with another solution provider with a bigger offering and price tag and sell that instead. Those partners should be dropped faster than a radioactive potato and replaced with a new one.

Stay tuned for Part 2!

The Complete AI in Procurement, Sourcing, and Supplier Management: No Gen-AI Needed Series Indexed

The Complete AI in X (No Gen-AI) Series, 2018/2019 and 2024!

CLASSIC (SM Content Hub)

AI In Procurement

AI in Procurement Today Part I
AI in Procurement Today Part II

AI in Procurement Tomorrow Part I
AI in Procurement Tomorrow Part II
AI in Procurement Tomorrow Part III

AI in Procurement The Day After Tomorrow

AI in Sourcing

AI in Sourcing Today

AI in Sourcing Tomorrow Part I
AI in Sourcing Tomorrow Part II

AI in Sourcing The Day After Tomorrow

AI in Supplier Discovery

AI in Supplier Discovery Today

AI in Supplier Discovery Tomorrow

AI in Supplier Discovery The Day After Tomorrow

AI in Supplier Management

AI in Supplier Management Today Part I
AI in Supplier Management Today Part II

AI in Supplier Management Tomorrow Part I
AI in Supplier Management Tomorrow Part II

AI in Supplier Management The Day After Tomorrow

AI in Optimization

AI In Sourcing Optimization Today

AI In Sourcing Optimization Tomorrow

AI In Sourcing Optimization The Day After Tomorrow Part I
AI In Sourcing Optimization The Day After Tomorrow Part II

CURRENT (Your SI!)

AI In Procurement

Advanced Procurement Yesterday: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Procurement Today: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Procurement Tomorrow: No Gen-AI Needed

AI in Sourcing

Advanced Sourcing Yesterday: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Sourcing Today: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Sourcing Tomorrow: No Gen-AI Needed

AI in Supplier Discovery

Advanced Supplier Discovery Yesterday: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Supplier Discovery Today: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Supplier Discovery Tomorrow: No Gen-AI Needed

AI in Supplier Management

Advanced Supplier Management Yesterday: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Supplier Management Today: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Supplier Management Tomorrow: No Gen-AI Needed

Have You Brought Your Supply Chain Planning Out of the Middle Ages?

Back in the 1930s, the dark ages of computing began, starting with the Telex messaging network in 1933. Beginning as an R&D project in 1926, it became an operational teleprinter service, operated by the German Reichspost (under the Third Reich — remember we said “dark ages”). With a speed of 50 baud, or about 66 words per minute, it was initially used for the distribution of military messages, but eventually became a world-wide network of both official and commercial text messaging that survived into the 2000s in some countries. A few years later, Bell Labs’ George Stibitz built the “Model K” adder in 1937 that was the first proof of concept for the application of Boolean Logic to computer design. Two years later, the Bell Labs CNC (Complex Number Calculator) was completed. In 1941, the Z3, using 2,300 relays, was constructed and could perform floating point binary arithmetic with a 22 bit word length and execute aerodynamic calculations. Then, in 1942, the ABC (Atanasoff-Berry Computer) was completed, seen by the John Mauchly, who invented the ENIAC, which was the first general purpose computer completed in 1945.

Three years later, in 1948, Frederic Williams, Tom Kilburn, and Geoff Toothill developed the Small-Scale Experimental Machine (SSEM), which was the first digital, electronic, stored-program computer to run a computer program, consisting of a mere 17 instructions! A year later, we saw the modem that allowed computers to communicate through ordinary phone lines. Originally developed for transmitting radar signals, the modem was adapted for computer use four years later in 1953. The same year saw the EDSAC, the first practical stored-program computer to provide a regular computing service.

A year later, in 1950, we saw the introduction of magnetic drum storage, which could store 1 Million bits, which was a previously unimagined amount of data (and twice what Gates once said anyone would ever need), though nothing by today’s standards. Then, in 1951, the US Census Bureau gets the Univac 1 and the end of the dark ages are in sight. Then, in 1952, only two years after the magnetic drum, IB introduces a high speed magnetic tape, which could store 2 million digits per tape! In 1953, Grimsdale and Webb built a 48-bit prototype transistorized computer that used 92 transistors and 550 diodes. Later that same year, MIT created magnetic core memory. Almost everything was in place for the invention of a computer that didn’t take a whole room. In 1956, MIT researchers began experimenting with direct keyboard input to computers (which up to now could only be programmed using punch cards or paper tape). A prototype of a mini computer, the LGP-30, was created at Caltech this same year. A year later, FORTRAN, one of the first third generation computing languages, was developed in 1957. Early magnetic disk drives were invented in 1959. And 1960 saw the introduction of the DEC PDP-1, one of the first general purposed mini-computers. A decade later saw the first IBM computer to use semiconductor memory. And one year later, in 1971, we saw one of the first memory chips, the Intel 1103, and the first microprocessor, the Intel 4004.

Two years later NPL and Cyclades started experimenting with internetworking with the European Informatics Network (EIN) and Xerox PARC began linking Ethernets with other networks using its PUP protocol. And the Micral, based on the Intel 8008 microprocessor, one of the earliest non-kit personal computers, ws released. the next year, in 1974, the Xerox Parc Alto was released and the end of the dark ages were in sight. In 1976, we saw the Apple I, and in 1981 we saw the first IBM PC and the middle ages began as computing was now within reach of the masses.

By 1981, before the middle ages began, we already had GAIN Systems (1971), SAP (1972), Oracle (1977), and Dassault Systemes, four (4) of the top fourteen (14) supply chain planning companies according to Gartner in their 2024 Supply Chain Planning Magic Quadrant (Challengers, Leaders, and Dassault Systemes). In the 1980s we saw the formation of Kinaxis (1984), Blue Yonder (1985), and OMP (1985). Then in the 1990s, we saw Arkieva (1993), Logility (1996), and John Galt Solutions (1996). This says ten (10) of the top fourteen (14) supply chain planning solution companies were founded before the middle ages ended in 1999 (and the age of enlightenment began).

Tim Berners-Lee invented the World Wide Web in 1989, the first browser appeared in 1990, the first cable internet service appeared in 1995, Google appeared in 1998, and Salesforce, considered to be one of the first SaaS solutions built from scratch launched in 1999. At the same time, we reached an early majority of internet users in North America, ending the middle ages and starting the age of enlightenment, as global connectivity was now available to the average person (at least in a first world country).

Only e2Open (2000), RELEX Solutions (2005), Anaplan (2006), and o9 Solutions (2009) were founded in the age of enlightenment (but not the modern age). In the age of enlightenment, we left behind on premise and early single client-server applications and began to build SaaS applications using a modern SaaS MVC architecture where requests came in, got directed to the machine with the software, that computed answers, and sent them back. This allowed for rather fault-tolerant software since if hardware failed, the instance could be moved. If an instance failed, it could just be redeployed with backup data. It was true enlightenment. However, not all companies adopted multi-tenant SaaS from day one, only a few providers did in the early days. (So even if your SCP company began in the age of enlightenment, it may not be built on a modern multi-tenant cloud-native true SaaS architecture.) This was largely because there were no real frameworks to build and deploy such solutions on (and Salesforce literally had to build their own.

However, in 2008, Google launched its Cloud and in 2010, one year after the last of the top 14 supply chain applications was launched, when Microsoft launched Azure, the age of enlightenment came to an end and the modern age began as there were now multiple cloud-based infrastructures available to support cloud-native true multi-tenant SaaS applications (no DC operational knowledge required), making it easy for any true SaaS provider to develop these solutions from the ground up.

In other words, not one Supply Chain Planning Solution recognized as a top supply chain planning solution by Gartner was founded in the modern age. (Moreover, if you look at the niche players, only one of the six was founded in the age of enlightenment, the rest are also from the middle ages.)

So why is this important?

  • If the SCP platform core was architected back in the day of client server, and the provider did not rearchitect it for true multi-tenant, even if the vendor wrapped this core in a VM (Virtual Machine), put it in a Docker container, and put it in the cloud, it’s still a client-server application at the core. This means it has all the limits of client server applications. One client per server. No scalability (beyond how many cores and how much memory the server can support).
  • If the platform core was architected such that each module, which runs in its own VM, requires a complete copy of the data to function, that’s a lot of data replication required to run the platform, especially if it has 12 separate modules. This can greatly exacerbate the storage requirements, and thus the cost.
  • But that’s not the big problem. The big problem is that models constructed on a traditional client-server architecture were designed to run only one scenario at a time, and only do so if a complete copy of the data is available. So if you want to run multiple models, multiple scenarios for a model, or both, you need multiple copies of the module, each with their own data set for each model scenario you want to run. This not only exacerbates data requirements, but compute requirements as well. (This is why many providers limit how many models you can have and scenarios you can run as their cloud compute costs skyrocket due to the inefficiency in design and data storage requirements.)

    And while there is no such thing as a truly optimal supply chain plan, since you never know all the variables in advance, there are near optimal fault-tolerant plans that, with enough scenarios, can be identified (by building up a picture of what happens at different demand levels, supply levels, transportation times, etc.) and you can select the one that balances cost savings, quality, expected delivery time, and risk at levels you are comfortable with.

That’s the crux of it. If you can’t run enough scenarios across enough models to build up a picture of what happens across different possibilities, you can’t come up with a plan that can withstand typical perturbations, and definitely can’t come up with a plan that can be rapidly put into place to deal with a major demand fluctuation, supply fluctuation, or an unexpected supply chain event.

So if you want to create a supply chain plan that can enable supply chain success, make sure you’ve brought your supply chain planning out of the middle ages (through the age of enlightenment) and into the modern age. And we mean you. If you chose a vendor a decade ago and are resisting migration to a newer solution, including one offered by the vendor, because you spent years, and millions, tightly integrating it to your ERP solution, then you’re likely running on a single tenant SaaS architecture at best, and a nicely packaged client server architecture otherwise. You need to upgrade … and you should do it now! (We won’t advise you here as we don’t know all of the vendors in the SCP quadrant well enough, but we know some, including those that have recently acquired newer, age of enlightenment and even modern age solutions, and know that some still have old tech on old stacks that they maintaining because of install base. Don’t be the company stalling progress for your own good!)

We Want to Be a Smart Company — What Else Can We Do! Part 2

In part 1, you admitted that you read the dumb company: avoid the fork in the road and dead company walking: avoiding the graveyard articles (links in part 1), taken them to heart, admitted you’re making some mistakes and that you’re not doing some key functions as well as you could. Most importantly, you know you need to do more to avoid becoming a casualty of the next mass corporate extinction that’s coming. And you asked us to tell you what else you could do to avoid becoming a dead company walking (or, even worse, a zombie company*)? And yesterday we gave you our first five suggestions. Today we give you our next five.

06) Remember Websites are MORE than Static Web Pages

Your website should be a dynamic and interactive website that quickly guide visitors to the educational and informative content they want, with point-based and constructable demos, targeted education and thought leadership, and easy to find contact us options for information requests and specific live demos from thought leaders and solution professionals, not sales people. (Qualify the lead, then pass it on to sales.)

It should not, like the majority of websites today, be an overload of hogwash messaging and buzzwords, fancy animated graphics that don’t actually show the solution in use, a constant barrage of questions (along the “do you have trouble with …”) with the uniform “contact us for answers” directive. It definitely should not contain nonstandard terminology for modules, functions, and processes. (And definitely don’t mislead and say you’re an e-Procurement tool if you’re an e-Sourcing tool, and if you don’t know the difference, that just means you didn’t do your homework!) Confusing or non-existent information on target industries and market size (as we all know there is no one size fits all solution, and pretending that your company has one is just obnoxious). Or utter lack of information on pricing tiers and benefits. (Maybe you can’t give an exact price because you offer SSDO or advanced analytics that requires a lot of pay-per-use cloud processing, but you can still give a base license fee or range. If you’re a M+ annual solution, you don’t want companies that can’t, or won’t, pay more than 100K reaching out. The market should understand you get what you pay for and that a 100K solution won’t, or at least shouldn’t, have all the features of a 1M solution, but also that, if they are a smaller company, they shouldn’t need all the advanced features of the 1M solution either.)

07) Tap Your Talent for Top Tens

Sometimes the talent you overlook (because you think they are just a developer, pre-sales solution advisor, etc.) has the best ideas (and sometimes they don’t, and that’s why you use your leadership to filter out the best ideas).

If you have a problem, or just want to look for opportunities for improvement, ask your people first. Now, they won’t identify or come up with everything (as they have a limited view from a single function and may not have the decades of experience that is sometimes required to come up with something that is both “obvious” and revolutionary), but why should you pay a consultant to help you with improvements you can identify and make in house? You want the consultant focussed on the big win improvements you don’t see (and not easily sidetracked with the dozens of things you can do better).

So, ask all of your employees to come up with, anonymously if it helps, the

  • ten best ways to save money,
  • ten best investments across the business,
  • ten best ways to improve productivity,
  • ten SaaS apps you can do without,
  • ten functions that would totally change customer productivity in your core offering
  • ten functions that could be removed from the roadmap because they are actually low value,
  • etc.

And while you will get a lot of pyrite, you will get some gold nuggets. And if you’re knowledgeable enough, you’ll be able to separate the gold nuggets out. (And if not, you’ve jump started your expert advisor with some unique insights into your business and your team and that will improve their productivity.)

08) Always Pause for Innovation

Regardless of how you interpret what we tell you in #10, if an opportunity for innovation presents itself, always pause to evaluate it and see if it is a true opportunity, fits in with the plan, and would make the product, and the plan, better. If it would make the plan better, and it wouldn’t slow progress down more than a small amount, work it into the plan. If it would make the plan better, but would slow progress down a moderately significant amount, put it on the roadmap to be considered in the next plan update (as new ideas might emerge that make it less of an impact by then). Moreover, when you stumble upon it, the right innovation will improve the product, the plan, and even the timeline.

09) Sign in Blood

Once you have a plan, sign your name to it in blood. The only thing worse than not having a proper plan is abandoning a good plan part way through (because you get too anxious or lose faith) … if, after investing a lot of time and effort, you abandon a plan part way through, you might as well just shut the doors now instead of retreating into the castle to starve as you wait out the siege. Greatness takes time, effort, and sometimes sacrifice.

10) Drive Decisions Like You Just Heisted the Antwerp Diamonds

Once you have a direction, don’t stop. Don’t pull over. Keep going until you successfully escape the EU, sorry, until you escape mediocrity and unprofitability. (And definitely don’t panic along the way. If you got out clean, and have 24 hours to make your escape, use every last hour, because once you cross the border, you’re off Scot-free.)

Once you have it all figured out and committed to, you have to be Hagar behind the wheel and drive, drive, drive. Slowing down will lead to stopping. Stopping to abandonment, and then, instead of improvement and success, it will be failure and the beginning of the end. As per 09, you have to see the plan through, and this will only happen if you never stop — you have to keep going as long as there is a drop of gas in the tank.

* yes, zombie companies exist in our space too; and, as the entertainment industry would have you believe, since we’re not medical doctors working in morgues with a constant fresh supply of brains, it is a fate worse than corporate death!

Dear Enterprise Software Vendor: Should You Fire Your PR and Marketing?

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, as a few non-isolated incidents opened up a whole new line of questioning.)

In response to a post by eCornell (which is/was here), THE REVELATOR wrote this comment (which is/was here) which is repeated here in its entirety in case it gets deleted, since anytime we tried to have a serious conversation around sales, marketing, public relations, and/or Gen-AI with Big X firms and/or (mid-sized) consultancies and analyst firms, they have quickly deleted our comments, and sometimes their entire posts rather than enter into a real conversation on the subject (and now we have developed an implicit distrust any corporate account and keep copies of everything):

NOTE: The following post was inspired by a comment by Paul Rogers

Despite feeling like someone walking the hallowed halls of Cornell University wearing a “Yeah, Harvard University” t-shirt, sometimes you have to say things that need to be said – which is the purpose of sharing this article.

Ask ChatGPT the following two questions:

? What is the role of the Public Relations professional?
? What is the role of the Marketing professional?

Do you see any mention of end client or customer success as a priority? Whose best interests are PR and marketing professionals focused on? What does the answer to these questions tell you?

Corporate communication has always been about putting a positive spin on business and the brand. It reminds me of the 1986 Richard Gere movie Power – if not a great movie, it is certainly interesting and engaging. Denzel Washington’s role as public relations expert Arnold Billings is worth the price of admission alone.

Unfortunately, beyond the company they represent, are PR and marketing people doing more harm than good?

Thoughts?

To which the doctor responded (which is/was here)

Well, SI, which has repeatedly told companies in our space to fire their PR firms going back to 2008: Blogger Relations, firmly believes that PR firms are doing more harm than good because

  1. you are NOT selling enterprise software to consumers and
  2. it’s not “image”, it’s “solution”!

As for marketing, corporate marketing can be good if it exists to educate and explain, but when was the last time that happened on a regular basis in our space? Over a decade ago … now it’s all AI-this, orchestrate-that, and whatever the bullcr@p of the day is. It’s all buzz, no honey. All show, no substance. All confusion, no clarity. (It’s bad enough that Trump has brought back the Land of Confusion with his populist politics that have taken by storm the first world over, we don’t need it in our workplace!)

So, right now, I’d say at least 6/7, if not 9/10, marketers are doing more harm than good and should be fired with their PR brethren.

There are over 666 companies in our space, and way too many pandering any type of solution you can think of. While we need at least 3-5 in each industry group – market size – geo region – module focus you can think of for competition, we don’t need 30+. Most are not going to survive, especially when most of these don’t have solid solutions built from years of experience that solve real customer problems (as opposed to just offering some shiny new tech that looks good but doesn’t solve the majority of pain points in real organizations).

This means that companies need to focus less on marketing and selling and more on:

  • market research, especially listening to what the real pain points are of the customers they want to sell to (and they need to focus in on a customer group here, you can’t be everything to everyone in our space and any company that thinks it can is the first company you should walk away from)
  • solution (not product) development — not shiny new tech, tried-and-true tech that works
  • market education, explaining what they do, how they do it, and why it solves real pain points after building a solution that solves the pain points they identified in their research

Which means, especially if money is tight, they should forget the marketers and instead focus on hiring researchers and educators. People are getting tired of the 80%+ tech project failure rates. They’d welcome some real insight and real focus on real solutions. If only the market would wake up and realize this!