Category Archives: Market Intelligence

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

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 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 likely closer to correct than the wildly overpriced Big X bids.

As per our recent post on don’t hire a F6ckw@d from a Big X if you want to get analytics and AI right, most of these guys don’t have the breadth of expertise they claim to have. 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 turkeys 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 (and thus a knowledge of what analytics is and isn’t and can and can’t do).

While there was a time big analytics projects were 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 on your project if you hire a Big X. A niche consultancy will have all these tools, and only have masters on the project who do these projects day in and day out. Compared to the Big X, which will have a team of juniors using the manual playbook from the early 2000s, and one lieutenant to guide them. That’s why 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 and be focussing in on their six figure bids for the one that provides the best value, not the seven figure Big X bids.

(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 that big new system implmented as cost effectively as possible. 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 turkeys taking 4 months at 250 an hour and a total cost of 100K.)

Remember, where Big X are concerned, All of us is as dumb as One of us! Don’t fall for the Big X Collectivism MindF6ck! 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” (which means the enterprise throwing them out is too uninformed and not recognizing that the Big X bids are 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 these types of projects which they are not suited for and don’t have the expertise in. 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 are 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. So they just don’t have the talent in tech.)


 

Did you ever try eating a mitten? the doctor bets they did! (He feels you’re not all there if you think glorified reporting projects still cost One Million Dollars and might actually try to eat your mittens!)

Be Wary of Top X Lists That Only Have ONE Specialist Vendor!

For every area of Source-to-Pay, including, but not limited to Sourcing, Supplier Management, Contract Management, Spend Analysis, e-Procurement, Invoice-to-Pay, Accounts Payable, Intake, Orchestration, and Spend Management, you can find a Top 10 vendor list. In fact, you can find multiple … just do a Google or Chat-J’ai Pété! search. However, if you compare them all side by side, you’re likely going to see the same vendors over and over again. Specifically, in all but one of the lists, you’re likely going to see the following vendors: SAP Ariba, Coupa, iValua, GEP, Jaggaer, and Oracle. In other words, you’re going to see the same six vendors over and over again.

And therein lies the problem. These are top suites. Suites may be best in breed in the one or two modules they started off with when they were startups, or the one or two startups they just acquired, but they are NOT best of breed across the board. Not even close. If you’re looking at a Top X Supplier Management list, you want a vendor that is best of breed in (at least one aspect of) Supplier Management. If you wanted a top suite, you’d look at a top suite list.

And it wouldn’t be so bad if you knew this, but you don’t. You’re looking for these lists because you are looking for a solution, don’t know what the options are, or where to find them. So when there’s only one specialist vendor on the list, and the list is on a major site like Supply Chain Digital or CIO, how is an average Procurement Professional supposed to find out what vendors even offer the type of solution they are looking for, let alone who the best vendors may be?

The answer is they don’t. And who does help? No one! The reality is that those suites are enterprise suites, all designed for, and going after, the same Fortune 500 / Global 3000. All are great baseline end-to-end solutions. But this also means they are not designed for the next 30,000 companies in the mid-market. That they don’t have end-to-end deep capability, and may not have specialized capability in the one-or-two modules the organization needs deep capability in due to the organization’s specific needs. If the organization is a utility, it needs deep contractor vetting (which is a specialized type of supplier compliance management), especially when those contractors send people to consumer sites and a safety violation could not only harm them, but also harm the consumer. If the organization is a financial institution, contracts need to be extensive and iron clad when it comes to risk, compliance, and security and a top of the line contract management solution is needed. If the organization does a lot of small purchases, it probably needs a best-of-breed catalog management solution with easy search and request so the average organizational buyer can request it. If you examine each of these requirements, none of those suites due specialized contractor vetting. Only one has a best of breed CLM, and only one other has a partnership with a best of breed CLM (and while they’ll tell you otherwise, remember that the doctor was a Spend Matters Analyst, designed ALL of the original Source-to-Contract Solution Map evaluations [which are still the deepest technical evaluations in the analyst space], as well as led the development of the common stack and infrastructure sections across all of the Maps and knows with authority what the “best” solutions are in each of these categories when you go broad and deep technically*). With respect to catalog management, half of these suites do it quite well, but with regards to organizational roll-out and tail-spend capture, most don’t get good adoption and that’s why you have intake/orchestration specialists (like Zip, Oro, and Tonkean) providing easy to use, consumer friendly, natural language interfaces to the organizational users beyond Procurement (and sitting on top of these suites).

In other words, these lists are junk, and besides presumably keeping the advertisers happy, they offer no value to anyone. In fact, they are so junk that, if they are not clearly labelled as advertorials (because that’s what they effectively are), they could be in violation of Competition Acts (introduced to bring transparency into journalism and “influencing”) in some states and countries if it wasn’t for the inclusion of exactly one best-of-breed vendor on the list who clearly wasn’t paying the publication anything (because they are small and definitely couldn’t afford the advertising rates).

In short, if half of a “Best Of” list for a Procurement module is suites, it’s junk and you should completely ignore it, and the publication should do better (or not do it at all).

And while the doctor can’t point you to any Top X lists that are suite/advertiser free (as he’s never found any), what he can do is point you to non-exclusionary vendor lists that you can start from to do your own research.

ProcurementSoftware.site has an open directory of a large number of Procurement software companies organized across 20 categories and the Spend Matters Vendor Directory has an open directory of vendors across 26 categories. And while neither of their category definitions or segmentations is perfect, they’re pretty close and a great start (and infinitely better than useless suite-filled Top X lists).

Also, the doctor regularly posts easy access lists of vendors when he does a(n update of a) summary of an area, and so far has listed hundreds and hundreds of vendors across the main areas of S2P in these posts (with almost 100 vendors addressing some area of Supplier Management, over 80 of which ARE NOT SUITES — which means this recent Top 10: SRM Providers list on Supply Chain Digital was very, very, sad when it had 6 suites: Ariba, Coupa, GEP, iValua, Jaggaer, and Oracle; 2 Supply Chain ERPs: Blue Yonder and Epicor [well, 4 actually as SAP and Oracle are ERPs, but at least they have specialist Procurement suites]; 1 trade network (which isn’t actually SRM by the way); and EXACTLY ONE best of breed SRM solution: Vizibl. FYI: SI’s list of over 100 SXM platforms has over 20 SRM specialists … just sayin’.)

For easy consumption, here are:
75+ Sourcing Vendors
90+ Supplier Management Vendors
80+ Contract Management Vendors
40+ Spend Analysis Vendors
70+ e-Procurement Vendors
75+ Invoice-to-Pay/Accounts Payable Vendors
20+ Intake/Orchestrate Vendors
10+, 5+, and 20+ Legal, Marketing, and SaaS Management Vendors
55+ Supply Chain Risk Vendors

And if you’re wondering why the doctor doesn’t do Top X lists, it’s twofold. One, in no area are there exactly 10 best vendors, so it’s a disservice to you to leave vendors out or add vendors in just to make a round number. Two, and most importantly, the top X vendors are predicated on the specific functionality you are looking for and the ability of the vendor to plug into your software ecosystem. For example, in Supplier Management, there are over a dozen different areas of focus. the doctor‘s coverage included 10 major areas of functionality, of which “R”elationship was just one, and while a large number of vendors “do” relationship, there are a number of different definitions as to what that is (and what functionality must be included). So, without a good definition accompanied by an ecosystem definition, there’s 40-ish vendors that may or may not be on that list. Every module has 3 to 10 major functionalities it has to support, and then sub-functionalities you may want. Without that context, no one can provide you a Top 10. (But if you engage an advisor who knows all those vendors at a high level, and provide your requirements, that person can help you get to a relevant short-list quickly so that you are making meaningful comparisons at decision time.)

* the doctor also knows that you don’t always need the absolute best, that sometimes the 80% solution [compared to the absolute best] is more than enough for most organizations, and that’s why a suite is often the right starting point for a large enterprise; especially if the enterprise augments the suite with one or two specific best-of-breed applications for specific use cases, as needed; but that’s your decision, not the suite, and not an uniformed third party hiding potential solutions from you

Commenting on The Prophet‘s 2024 Procurement / Supply Chain HR Advice

Don’t be Afraid of Going “In-House” If you Have Tech Expertise

In this recent LinkedIn article, The Prophet notes that, in the past, he’s always recommended a stint in consulting given the presentation and analytical skills it builds where consulting can also imply “outsourcing” or “managed services”. But for 2024 he think[s] the time is right to consider going “in-house” if you’re debating a career change in procurement or supply chain and you have technology skills.

the doctor fully agrees, with a mild caveat. Specifically, “in-house” must also be capable of being interpreted to include new-age niche service providers that, as The Prophet himself pointed out in his 9th Prediction that “SaaS Management Solutions Start to Eat Services Procurement Tech“, we’re going to see new categories of blended consulting/service providers that offer not only consulting but power engagements with in house (SaaS) tech that blends tech, data, and automation in new ways to provide enhanced service packages to clients based on service fees, data fees, platform fees, and consulting fees, depending on the engagement. These plays will need the above above average talent to bring it all together, and could prove to be the most fruitful jobs this talent can get both in terms of compensation (especially if they get a small piece of the company) and job satisfaction (solving problems in less time with more value than any Big X did before).

The Prophet also notes that many consulting orgs are still on hiring freezes or cutbacks and a bunch I know aren’t raising salaries this year and that if you are an expert “grinder” versus someone with deep commercial/sales or product knowledge, you might be better valued in a company in 2024. the doctor agrees.

Moreover, the doctor believes that this will be the year that Big X Consultancies will, hopefully, in tech, finally be hit with the triple whammy of:

  1. a market unable to afford their ridiculously high rates
    especially relative to the average service they provide (as the market has to accept what we’ve known since The Limits to Growth was published in 1972)
  2. an exacerbated brain drain
    as the companies who let talent slip in favour of DEI quotas recruit good talent back in house (which is easy when talent who went to consultancies sees their salaries freeze & their careers stall)
  3. a dose of reality as the smarter companies see what some of us analysts* have seen for years
    that when it comes to modern tech or industry leading service offerings, you have one group leader who is stellar (and worth whatever the firm charges), two or three handpicked recruits that are above average (and worth double or triple their market value because you can’t get that talent easy), and then thirty to forty below average bench warmers who aren’t capable of doing anything but following the playbook written years ago by the group leader and only updated sparingly as the handpicked recruits have time.

If you don’t believe the doctor when he says that the big consultancies are much shorter on the above average tech talent they claim to provide you, then ask yourself this:

How are Big X consultancies supposed to hire talent during tech booms when some tech companies will pay 250K+ for an intermediate developer (which is twice the average average salary in some well educated markets, and at least 2/3 more than the average salary#)?

When the VC and PE money flows, startups, which are cool and an opportunity to get rich if you ride the next unicorn, are more attractive than starting at the bottom rung of a consultancy. Thus, in these times, especially when the consultancies need bodies for all the implementation projects (because when the economy is pumped up by tech, a lot of companies buy tech), they hire what they can get — which is not the above average talent (of which there isn’t even enough for all the tech companies when you look at the paltry number of STEM graduates each year, the number of those who are actually qualified [which is less and less every year, not only do you have the double whammy of severe grade inflation and below par DEI-agenda admissions that The Prophet pointed out, but also overworked Professors who are forced to grade on a curve] and then calculate the number above average). Some of the “talent” graduating is so bad that you’re lucky if they understand the concept of a boundary condition when coding or calibrating when installing a piece of hardware. (Remember, the doctor used to be a Professor, keeps in contact with Professors, and the situation gets worse and worse each year. It’s all about maximizing dollars — from out-of-province/state students who’ll pay more, international students who’ll pay way more, and then hitting those quotes for massive DEI-based subsidies. It’s not about admitting, training, and turning out the best and the brightest. Only the rich and the rainbow.)

Now, the doctor should again point out that he’s not totally bashing the Big X — in traditional (management/operational/finance/strategy) consulting domains, many of them are great — and way better than an average company. But in tech, you’re lucky if they’re average. And when it comes to advanced tech, if you’re trying to find a true leader to take on your project, your odds are about equal to snake eyes when you roll the bones. (the doctor was serious when he said that if you want to get analytics and AI right, don’t hire a F6ckW@d from a Big X! Your cost will be too high and your odds of generating a real return too low.)

* even if many analysts can’t speak the truth because their firm’s success hinges on the success of the vendors who pay for their research, which in turn hinges on the success of the consulting partners they use for implementations …
# even though these same vendors will then wonder why they go bankrupt or have to do massive layoffs in two years

Sievo is Still Constantly Sieving Your Data For New Opportunities

While the doctor has never covered Sievo on Sourcing Innovation, he did cover them in depth at Spend Matters, and, if you have appropriate Content Hub access, you can find the last 3-Part in-depth Vendor analysis here in Part I, Part II, and Part III.

A Quick Recap

Sievo was founded twenty years ago in 2003 in Helsinki, Finland and is probably the oldest remaining standalone spend analytics player, as a significant portion of all of the M&A that occurred in the 2010s was on leading spend analytics players. (The next oldest standalone vendor is likely Rosslyn Analytics founded in 2007.) While it started as a standard service-based spend analytics offering, by the time of the doctor‘s in-depth update on Spend Matters in 2020, Sievo had moved well beyond basic spend analysis and centered much of its value proposition on driving savings and improvement (as Sievo is not just limited to spend data and can also process compliance, risk, and ESG/GHG/Carbon data, for example) program identification (through automated insights), measurement and management across the full spectrum of spend, where they do the data management services, the foundations for savings and improvement program management, and even the meta-data management to power advanced organizational initiatives.

With regards to data management, it handles all of the system integrations; refreshes on your schedule; does all the classification (working with your team to build the classification you want); cleanses, normalizes, and enriches your data; and rolls out (customized) market and category intelligence to your organization.

With regards to classification, they use a mix of (black-box) AI and human (re-)classification and review, guaranteeing 94% accuracy, and usually achieving 98% to 99% accuracy. They use multiple techniques including customized in-house LLMs, DeBERTa Large v3, BERT, evolutionary algorithms, and NER models, with and without feedback. (And while the doctor knows most of you won’t understand any part of that sentence, it means their AI/ML team actually knows what they are doing and they are not just a bunch of college drop outs randomly feeding open models with random data and assuming anything that appears to give them 90% accuracy is good. Which happens quite a bit in “data science” consulting shops. See the doctor‘s post about how to do Analytics and AI Right.) Mappings, especially for low confidence, high spend, and new categories/customers are also manually reviewed on a regular basis, corrected, and the models retrained. In addition, a user can request a reclassification at any time, and once a customer admin approves, the data is reclassified (in an override) and the model retrained.

With regards to integration/refresh, they’ve integrated with over 100 ERP/AP/data systems and dozens upon dozens of market, risk, and ESG feeds that they can use to enhance your data and typically refreshes massive data sets daily (but can do faster or slower depending on the desires of the organization).

With regards to traditional analytics, the platform has the standard set of modern drill down dashboards, support for user-defined calculated/derived dimensions, and incredibly powerful filters that support functions that can be used on any dimension (base or derived) which collectively allow a user to break out, and drill into, any subset of data of interest.

With regards to out-of-the-box reporting and analytics, Sievo has over two-dozen out-of-the-box dashboards that provide deep insight into spend by category, PO, invoice, supplier, emission, cycle time, tail, geography, etc. There’s also pre-built insight dashboards for savings opportunities on price (variance), payment terms, currency exchange, and efficiency/cycle-time improvement.

With regards to savings tracking and management, Sievo includes a realized savings dashboard that can automatically compute the spend difference period-over-period, currency fluctuations, and changes due to changes in market indices (where a contract price is tied to a market index). It provides insight into spend that results from non-performance and allows Procurement to pinpoint the exact reason for deviation from a plan. Note that savings tracking is very extensive in the platform and users can define budgets, demands, expected trends, milestones, approvals, etc. and track each initiative as a separate project in the platform.

It also supports forecasting/budgeting, contract metadata management, and price benchmarking based on over $1 Trillion of customer spend (and their customers now represent 1% of global GDP) mapped to a common internal schema and with their deep knowledge of direct material pricing (from indexes, etc.), they can help customers benchmark down to the material level in a BoM.

So What’s New? (Since 2020.)

Since 2020, Sievo has made a number of platform improvements and included a number of new offerings in the spend analysis platform. The most notable of which are the following:

Integrated Actions

In addition to supporting (savings) action plan, some associated actions can now be initiated within the system (with more being added with every release). Email contacts relative to supplier performance / sustainability can be initiated with the system, automated negotiations through Pactum can be kicked off within the system, and Ecovadis requests (detailed below) can be kicked off within the system. A user can also access the Sievo Academy, Sievo Support, reclassification requests, associated contracts (not just metadata), and roadmap suggestions/product feedback directly through the platform.

Integrated Sustainability and Third Party Dashboards

When we last covered Sievo, it had an Ecovadis integration and could pull in select data for enrichment dimensions or measures, but, if you have the subscription, they now maintain all Ecovadis data natively in their platform and have a new Sustainability dashboard where a user can dive into the different Ecovadis scores (Global, Labor, Ethics, Environment, and Sustainable Procurement) by category, material, supplier, etc. and see the global score, assessed suppliers (as not all suppliers will be assessed by Ecovadis), assessed suppliers, score by top 100, score by category, score by organization, global score heatmap, etc. A user can drill down to an individual supplier (by category and material) and see all of the Ecovadis details natively in Sievo. If a supplier has not been evaluated and the organization would like it evaluated, they can even initiate a request directly in the Sievo platform. (Alternatively, if you have other sustainability/risk data feed licences, including [but not limited to] SupplierIO, RiskMethods, D&B, etc.] all of that data can now be brought in and maintained natively as well.)

CO2 Analytics

There’s also a new set of CO2 Scope 3 Emission management dashboards that can, at a category, material, and/or supplier level, summarize total CO2(-equivalent) emissions, related spend, intensity, carbon price amount, with breakdowns by category, GHG protocol category, organization, region, supplier country, share of emissions per higher level category/supplier, etc. A user can dive in and see the Unit of Measure (UoM) conversion rates, inflation rates, mapping quality, and types of estimates used at the meta-leval and the mapping source, emissions factor, validity dates, and associated backup (attachments, etc.) at the mapping level.

One unique feature of the Sievo platform is that the CO2 can be used as a second currency alongside spend and allow users to see the spend/carbon trade off of different decisions. (For example, switching to supplier S for Product P can save D Dollars but cost X emissions.)

Curated Data, including Science-Based Target Initiative (SBTI), Support

Sievo has not only started tracking supplier ESG and net-zero status data, but also correlates an organization’s spend against SBTI records and summarizes percentage of spend with SBTI suppliers (who have set a target), percentage of spend with SBTI suppliers with near-term targets, total spend with net-zero targets, and percentage of de-listed suppliers as well as spend by top 100 suppliers and net-zero status, spend by category and net-zero status, and spend by organization and net-zero status. It’s a great way to see SBTI spend coverage at a glance.

At a finer grained level, for each supplier, it summarizes the supplier’s general status, number of commitments, number of targets, net zero status & target year if committed, near term target status (targets set or not), long term target status, company temperature alignment, spend, sector, org type, region, location(s), etc. and all data can be accessed by a drill in to the supplier level.

AI-Extended Supplier Profiles with Feedback and Human Validation Available

In addition to spend benchmarks powered by community intelligence on well over One Trillion Dollars of spend mapped to a common, centralized, taxonomy, they have also been building a common supplier database which currently consists of over 6 M suppliers (with the goal of 10M by EoY 2024) with enhanced supplier profile data around geography, categories and materials, CO2/GHG and sustainability, SBTI, and other relevant data from a spend analysis perspective. In addition, they have been augmenting it using customized AI/NLP/LLM that uses web-based data (from the supplier’s web site, Wikipedia, supplier intelligence platforms, etc.) to provide a more complete picture in order to provide clients with deep embedded supplier insights, which will eventually support deep discovery in a future release.

Sievo manually validates a subset of high-spend suppliers for every client and every user can provide feedback on supplier data they feel is incorrect and request validation on a supplier if desired. Suppliers whose profiles have been manually validated are marked as verified (and data is not changed without human verification if such data comes from a data feed where the provider, such as Ecovadis, has manually verified the data).

Extended Supplier 360 Dashboard and CraftBoards

The dashboard summarizes total spend (for the given time range), it’s spend rank, PO coverage, avg invoice, spend share by category, by organization, by ERP supplier (instance/subsidiary), by payment terms, invoice-to-due days, due-to-pay days, [local] price [consolidation] opportunities, price opportunities vs. best price from a different supplier, top insights (from the new insights dashboard, discussed below), and, if desired, key metrics from the new SBTI dashboard (summarized above).

Since our last update, Sievo has also added CraftBoards, which allows users to build their own dashboards on any data subsets they like. Sievo can process and display any type of data, and the user can build cubes and dashboards on any data source they like.

Adaptive Insight Recommendation Engine

Sievo has doubled down on identifying all types of savings opportunities across price (variance), payment terms, process optimization, risk and compliance, and the (supplier) tail. Sievo has also doubled down on a new insights overview dashboard that currently summarizes system-identified opportunities across almost twenty (20) types of analysis across those five categories (with more coming in future releases). With regards to price optimization, it will summarize price (variance) opportunity and high price impact. With regards to payment terms, the outlier opportunity, the early payment impact, and overall consolidation opportunity as well as (interest/penalty) losses due to critically late spend. With regards to process, it summarizes order consolidation spend, hidden tail spend, non-PO outlier spend, and after-the-fact spend that is likely ripe with opportunity. With regards to risk and compliance, FX exposed spend, outlier sustainability spend, single sourced material spend, and hidden locally sourced high risk spend. Finally, with respect to the tail, they break it down by category, material, new supplier, new supplier non-PO, and supplier count increase which is super rife with opportunity. It’s super easy to drill into each dashboard metric, see the breakdown by supplier, category, or location, and quickly identify the top opportunities for savings. And, of course, dive into the suppliers with the highest opportunities as the Sievo platform was designed to automatically bubble up insights from the data in a manner that is relevant and actionable.

For each area, there’s also an insight dashboard that summarizes the total number of insights identified, and the breakdown by open, assigned, completed, and removed. One major difference in their platform is that a human user can identify when an insight is immaterial or non-actionable and the system will not only hide it, but learn from the feedback, and not show the insight again. For example, a payment term rationalization across a supplier’s location will not be possible if the average payment term is longer than legally allowed in France or the UK (as a result of recent laws designed to ensure [small] suppliers are paid timely). Note that insights can be assigned for action to a user and, once assigned, generates an action plan in the Sievo system.

The individual opportunity dashboards are incredibly detailed, and you can see prior coverage or a Sievo demo for details. For example, the payment terms consolidation dashboard, which allows you to dive into a category (as most contracts are category based), allows you to pick a supplier, see the supplier spend and summary, spend by payment terms, spend development opportunities by payment terms, totals by ERP supplier instance, best payment terms, overall working capital opportunity by ERP supplier, etc. etc. etc.

New Widget-Based Insights-Oriented Home Page

The main dashboard can summarize the top insights (as per the insights discussed above) across each area analyzed by the platform and provide quick links into each insight area and bubble up insight while also giving users quick access to:

  • their current/open initiatives
  • their bookmarked dashboards
  • their current/open reclassification requests
  • recent bulletins
  • quick links to relevant courses in the Sievo Academy
  • top CO2 emitters
  • other widgets the user wants on their home page

Extended Do-it-Yourself Self Service Report Creation

Not really new, but as they have added dimensions and measures, they have all be included in the self-service dashboard (and organized by measure type such as spend, payment term, supplier, invoice, PO, material, category, etc. for quick location). Similarly, as new chart types have become available, they have been included as well. (And you are not restricted to traditional bar, line, pie, and table charts — full featured pivot charts, scatter plots, and mekko charts are also available in self-service).

Near-Term Roadmap

Community Data

Sievo users will be able to benchmark their data against anonymized data from other Sievo companies’. For example, a company will be able to gain insight into its payment term competitiveness with respect to market average. A variety of pilots are ongoing to determine the most useful data, but these insights will extend the value Sievo can bring to its users.

Index-based Price Forecasting

In the materials forecasting module, more functionalities are being integrated to ensure a deep understanding of future budgeting and spending and simplify usability. Soon (in Q2 2024), forecasting based on indexes will become available, making the process even smoother and accurate for Sievo users.

Supplier Portal

ESG emissions in the supply chain are largely related to those from suppliers, and thus collaboration with suppliers is a must for emission reduction. A new supplier questionnaire and supplier portal enables users to ask suppliers for information related to their emissions, sustainability initiatives, and more.

In conclusion, if you are looking for a Best-of-Breed spend analysis solution, Sievo continues to be among the best in the space and should be on your RFP short-list.

A Truly Great Article on Transforming Legacy Procurement

If you’re a new occasional reader, you might think that one of the doctor‘s primary goals is to just rip big analyst firms and publications apart when they publish ridiculous results (based on ridiculous surveys) or ill-conceived articles with little to no good Procurement content (if we’re lucky), or wrong content (if we’re not) that, as far as the doctor is concerned, would have been just as good if they unleashed an intern with no knowledge of procurement on Chat-GPT (and you all know what the doctor thinks of that!).

However, that’s just because, as Procurement is hitting the limelight (as a result of all the supply chain disasters we’ve been facing that they have been expected to deal with), coverage has increased significantly (to capitalize on the hot topic), and most of it is, frankly, NOT that good. However, every now and again there is a truly tremendous article published under the radar, and when the doctor finds one of those, he’s very happy to bring your attention to it. Especially when it’s written by a practitioner who obviously gets it.

In her article on From Tactical to Strategic: Transforming Legacy Procurement, the author reminds us that the majority of large scale transformations fail, that a major challenge for older companies is that they have no comprehensive view into global spend, that e-Procurement systems offer many fixes, but also that if they are not optimized for your specific business needs, you could be missing out on opportunities for better supplier partnerships and cost leadership.

This does not mean that you should build your own (overly) customized system, or insist that the systems support your current processes (before determining if those processes are better than the processes supported out-of-the-box by the new systems that have been developed based on typical best practices of the industries the vendor serves), but that the solution has to be appropriate to your industry and support some customization where you need it for specific products, services, or processes that make your business unique (but only those — don’t reinvent the wheel already there where you’re the same as everyone else).

The author then goes on to outline a three-phase approach to identifying, selecting, implementing, and, most importantly, maximizing adoption of the platform — which is an ultimate key to success.

the doctor highly recommends you read this article on going From Tactical to Strategic: Transforming Legacy Procurement.