Category Archives: Procurement Innovation

Per Year, How Much Should You Outlay for Source to Pay? 120K!

That’s right! We’re putting a stake in the ground on a real, actual, number! ( With caveats, of course, but still, a real number. !)

The one question everyone asks, but no one wants to answer, especially in North America, is how much? Most vendors want to get as much as possible, so most obscure their (true) pricing. Their analyst clients want them to get as much as possible (as they all dream of the day they get that Million-Dollar PO from a vendor in exchange for simply keeping the vendor at the top of the charts). Clients who think they got a deal don’t want you to underpay (and then have their renewal prices hiked up as the vendor seeks to maintain it’s profit margins) … and clients who think they’ve overpaid don’t want to tell you. And when some of the bigger vendors won’t even talk to you unless they think you’re good for seven (7) figures (i.e. One Million Dollars) a year or more, you might be tempted to think good (DIY) suites are out of your grasp.

They’re not. And if you’re smart, they can be quite affordable, and lead to not just an identified, but realized, ROI in a short time frame.

But first, here the first set of caveats around the 120K number:

[01] You are a true mid-market company, which we’re defining as a company more-or-less between 500 Million and One Billion in Revenues and an addressable spend of 250 Million to 500 Million (as you can’t address payroll, government controlled utilities, mortgages/long term lease rates, etc.).

[02] You have an average sized procurement team of under 30 people. (In a 2019 Benchmark, average organizations had 33.5 Procurement personnel per 1 Billion in revenue.)

[03] You’re doing an average number of projects per year for those people (and likely only strategically addressing 20% to 30% of the addressable spend per year).

[04] As you have (next to) nothing in terms of modern source-to-pay technology, your primary focus is the baseline capabilities (as defined in our Source-to-Pay series). You might want a few of the more advanced capabilities, but right now, getting the baseline (which will likely provide 80% of the value by allowing you to get all of your processes, and costs, under control) is the primary goal.

In other words, you [1] aren’t a large multi-national global enterprise (or small business with less than 100M / year going through Procurement), [2] don’t have a large team, [3] aren’t going to be driving the CPU utilization through the roof, and [4] aren’t expecting the top technology across the board (as industry average functionality or better is enough). In this situation, the vendor’s stack and (virtual) data center delivery costs are not ridiculous, it’s support requirements are not high, and it’s maintenance costs are predictable (as it’s not doing anything super complicated and novel in the tech that could require scarce talent). 120K is not only affordable, but sufficiently profitable (with a few more caveats that we’ll get to below).

But I’ve never seen a quote that low!

Where are you looking? Oracle? SAP? Those are primarily ERPs, selling on an old locked-in-for-life model (thanks to ridiculous up-front costs that accountants need at last 10 years to amortize). Coupa? That’s one of the largest super suites on the market with S2P, Finance, Supply Chain, Power-Apps, and very advanced capabilities (through one of it’s almost two dozen acquisitions) that many companies don’t need and may never use.

The reality is there are perfectly good (and sometimes best-in-class) solutions for:

  • Spend Analysis that are less than 24K/year for enterprise licenses
  • e-Sourcing (RFX/Auction) that are less than 24K/year for enterprise licenses
  • CLM (primarily Governance and some Negotiation support) that are less than 24K/year for enterprise licenses
  • Supplier Management (primarily Information/Relationship with some Compliance/Performance/Risk) that are less than 24K/year for enterprise licenses
  • P2P that are less than 24K/year for enterprise licenses

which adds up to 120K. Plus, there are some smaller, lesser known, complete S2P suites that have all of these core baseline modules for subscriptions less than 10K/month (120K/year), which, for a multi year deal, will even slide in slightly under 100K for a quick deal (i.e. 8K/month vs. 10K/month).

The other caveats are:

[05] This does not include integration costs, training costs beyond access to all of the online-training materials/virtual academy, and the implementation costs are limited to flicking the switch to activate the license and any necessary setup configuration.

[06] The sales cycle is mostly virtual (web demos, video conference meetings, etc.). You won’t get to meet the sales rep in person more than once during the sales cycle (and that’s only if you’re buying a mini-suite or a multi-year deal; these vendors stay affordable by keeping their costs down, and multiple on-site demos and meetings do nothing but drive up overhead and costs).

[07] Most vendors will help you with the initial data load (provided you are loading data from a supported system in a supported format), but refreshes will typically not be included in the ongoing support, which will mainly be limited to online help and workaround support for identified bugs while the bugs are being fixed.

[08] This will typically not include any data enrichment offerings also offered by the vendor, especially if those data enrichments are coming from third parties, but these will be pre-integrated and you will only pay the third party fee if you want to turn them on.

However, [05] it’s SaaS, and most integrations should just be data loads, and since most modern tools have fully documented, fully open APIs, this is something that, if not out-of-the-box, you can open quote among your verified service providers and get reasonable rates on. [06] the pandemic finally proved to stragglers that you can do business online, even if you don’t like it; and when you consider that insisting on everything in person when every 3 person trip adds at least 10K of cost to what could be a lower cost product, why insist on in-person when not necessary. [07] once the initial data is loaded, most of the data will be created, and live, in the system. [08] you’d always be going to a third party for data enrichment anyway, so it’s unreasonable to think the SaaS provider should include it in their price.

So, even though there are a lot of caveats, none are unreasonable and none should impact the value you can generate. And as per our recent piece on Five Easy Mistakes Source-to-Pay Tech Buyers Can Avoid , given that you’ll realize quite a bit of up-front value just by getting a tech-enabled process in place and capturing all the spend (which you can then analyze for true opportunities), you don’t need to spend more (until you identify which advanced functionalities will actually provide more value and then you can go out and buy those modules / augmentations one-by-one as you need them, and chances are there won’t be that many that the organization will actually get enough use of to justify the purchase).

And what if you already have a first (or second generation) solution and are ready to upgrade to a leading third generation solution with multiple (fourth generation) advanced capabilities? Or you just hired an experienced Procurement team used to working with advanced technology and are ready for / need multiple advanced offerings? (Or are borderline enterprise?) What should you pay then?

To be continued.

Source-to-Pay+ Is Extensive (P33) … So Here Are Over 75 Invoice-to-Pay/Accounts Payable Companies to Check Out

As promised, here is a partial, starting, list of over seventy-five (75) Invoice-to-Pay/Accounts Payable companies that have many of the baseline features we outlined in our last installment (Part 32) of this series. Please note that this list is in no way complete (as no analyst is aware of every company), is only valid as of the date of posting (as companies sometimes go out of business and acquisitions happen all of the time in our space), and does NOT include companies that may have baseline invoicing but are primarily e-Procurement companies and don’t have more than the absolute invoicing basics (and virtually none of the additional features of a modern e-Invoicing solution as outlined in our last installment). While many might consider those e-Invoicing/Invoice-to-Pay/Accounts Payable vendors, they are not under our definitions.

As with our lists of e-Procurement Companies (in Part 7), Spend Analysis Companies (in Part 12), Sacred Cow Companies that do, or support, customized “spend” analysis on Marketing, Legal, and SaaS (in Part 13), Supplier Management Companies (in Part 20), Contract Management Companies (in Part 25), and e-Sourcing Companies (in Part 30), we provide the company name, URL and LinkedIn URL if available, headquarters country, and other offerings we are aware of.

Do your research, and reach out to an expert for help if you need it in compiling a starting list of relevant, comparable, vendors for your organization and your needs. For many of these vendors, good starting points might be the Sourcing Innovation archives, Spend Matters Pro and Gartner Cool Vendor write-ups if any of these sources has a write-up on the vendor.

Finally, note that when we say Source-to-Pay, it means that vendor offers modules that also cover Sourcing, Supplier/Vendor Management, Contract Management, Spend Analytics, and e-Procurement. As to whether or not SI would consider these modules meeting the majority of baseline functional requirements, you will have to check the previously published starting vendor lists in those areas.

Shout-Out to the The Revolutionary for identifying some I2PAP companies the doctor would otherwise have missed.

Finally, a second reminder that inclusion on this list DOES NOT imply Sourcing Innovation is recommending the vendor.

Company LinkedIn
Employees
HQ (State) Country Other Offerings / Notes
Abbyy 910 California, USA OCR, Document Automation, Process Automation
Accrualify ?? California, USA e-Procurement, Punch-Outs
Airbase 326 California, USA Expense Management/Corporate Cards
APExpress (Nivo1) 10 Pennsylvania, USA
AppZen 285 California, USA
AvidXChange 1598 North Carolina, USA
Basware 1450 Finland e-Procurement
Bedrock 78 Florida, USA Supplier Management
Birchstreet 336 Nevada, USA e-Procurement, Analytics, Hospitality
Candex 104 California, USA Tax Management
Claritum ?? United Kingdom e-Procurement, Sourcing, Analytics, SXM
Compleat Software 55 United Kingdom e-Procurement
Corcentric 588 New Jersey, USA Source-to-Pay
Corpay 1005 Georgia, USA Commercial Cards
Coupa 3,674 California, USA Source-to-Pay
CureMint 24 North Carolina, USA e-Procurement, Dentistry
Dataserv 126 Missouri, USA
DooAP 19 Texas, USA
eBidToPay ?? Bavaria Source to Pay
edicom 733 Spain VAT, PEPPOL
Emburse (ExpenseWatch) 932 California, USA Expense Management/Corporate Cards
EqualLevel 18 Maryland, USA e-Procurement, Public Sector, Funds Management
Esker 578 Wisconsin, USA Souring, Supplier Management, Contract Management, e-Procurement
Exflow (MSDynamicsWorld) ?? Sweden
Eyvo 24 California, USA e-Procurement, Contract Management
EZ Cloud ?? District of Columbia, USA
Finly 29 Delaware, USA e-Procurement
FleetCor 6,600 Georgia, USA Commercial Cards / Payments
Fraxion 58 Washington, USA e-Procurement
FullStep 128 Spain Source-to-Pay
GEP 4650 New Jersey, USA Source-to-Pay
Glean 227 California, USA
Inconto 8 Netherlands e-Procurement, Contract Management
Intenda 111 South Africa e-Procurement, e-Sourcing, Supplier Management, Contract Management
iPayables ?? California, USA
iPS 1047 New Jersey, USA
ISPnext 59 Netherlands Source-to-Pay
iValua 849 California, USA Source-to-Pay
Jaggaer 1,266 North Carolina, USA Source-to-Pay
Khareed ?? Pakistan e-Procurement, Supplier Management
Kissflow 466 Delaware, United States e-Procurement, Low-Code Platform
Kofax ?? California, USA Document Management
LexMark ?? Kentucky, USA Print Management
Marketboomer 11 Australia e-Procurement
MarketPlanet 72 Poland e-Procurement, Sourcing, Contract Management
Medius 562 Sweden Source-to-Pay
MineralTree 139 Massachusetts, USA Payments/Virtual Cards
Nipendo (AMEX) 55 Massachusetts, USA
Nium 1,014 California, USA Payments/Corporate Cards
Onventis 129 Germany Source-to-Pay
OpusCapita 471 Finland e-Procurement, Business Network
Oracle ?? Texas, USA e-Procurement, ERP
Order.co 146 e-Procurement, Source-to-Contract
PairSoft 124 Florida, USA e-Procurement
Proactis 557 United Kingdom Source-to-Pay
SAP 2,963 California, USA Source-to-Pay
SeriviceNow 22,304 California, USA Low Code Workflow Automation
SoftCo 131 Ireland e-Procurement
SourceDay 116 Texas, USA e-Sourcing, e-Procurement
SpendConsole 6 Australia Supplier Management
Stampli 230 California, USA
SupplyOn 227 Germany e-Procurement
SutiSoft 169 California, USA e-Procurement
Symbeo 83 Oregon, USA
Synertrade 180 Germany Source-to-Pay
Taulia 487 California, USA Working Capital Management
Tipalti 1009 California, USA Supplier Management, Payments, Tax/VAT, Fraud Detection
TradeShift 593 California, USA e-Procurement, Marketplaces
Tradogram 15 Ontario, Canada e-Procurement
Unimarket 77 New Zealand e-Procurement, Contract Management
Vortal 188 Portugal e-Procurement, eSourcing, SRM, Contract Management
Vroozi 66 California, USA e-Procurement
Xeeva (Simfoni) 127 Michigan, USA Source-to-Pay (through Simfoni)
xSuite 16 Massachusetts, USA e-Procurement
Yooz 358 France e-Procurement
Zip 347 California, USA Intake, Vendor Management, Payments
Zycus 1464 New Jersey, USA Source-to-Pay

We ain’t done yet. Come back for Part 34 where we begin to tackle the next set of emerging applications to manage the Source-to-Pay process!

Source-to-Pay+ is Extensive (P32) … Breaking Down the Invoice-to-Pay Core

In our last post, Part 31, we noted that, after covering e-Procurement, Spend Analysis, Supplier Management, Contract Management, and e-Sourcing, it was finally time to complete our coverage of core Source-to-Pay with Invoice-to-Pay (I2P), the last core module required for a Source-to-Pay solution. Even though your e-Procurement solution will accept invoices and support some basic processing, because we noted that the ability to accept and store invoices was a core requirement for e-Procurement back in Part 5, most platforms don’t support efficient processing (and that’s why most organizations only fully review 15% to 20% of invoices). Even if the buyers are smart and use the basic features to focus in on the invoices with the largest discrepancies between the billed amount and PO, or the largest dollar volumes, even minor over-billings on the unreviewed 80% can add up.

Moreover, there’s more value to be had than just preventing overspend before it happens and allowing a small team to do the work that couldn’t be done by a team five times the size before modern technology. That’s the value that a modern invoice to pay solution must offer, and that it will offer if, at a minimum, it supports the core capabilities outlined in this installment.

As with all of our previous discussions of technology, we will separate the requirements into basics (that no invoice-to-pay solution should be without) and advanced requirements (where at least some should be present if you are selecting an appropriate solution for your organizational needs).

BASIC

360-invoice capture
An invoice-to-pay / accounts payable solution must capture all invoices submitted through all channels, not just those submitted through the platform (as PO-flips). A buyer should not have to upload, manually create basic metadata, or request an invoice to be uploaded and indexed. Whether the invoice comes in as a PO-Flip, an XML/EDI submission through an integration, a PDF sent through email, a file uploaded, etc., the platform should automatically capture it, extract the key meta-data, associate it with the appropriate purchase order if there is one, detect if it is (likely) duplicate, and notify the buyer it has been received. Baseline OCR capability, natively or through an integration, is also assumed.

recurring invoice support
When we say every invoice, we mean every invoice — not just purchases for goods and services that go through the e-procurement system, but also monthly rentals (for assets and storage), local utilities (which don’t have a PO, but arrive in the same format each month for the same service with just different usages, rates, and totals), standing supporting services (negotiated before the systems were implemented), and so on. These systems must support these invoices, have placeholder virtual purchase orders to tie them to (for tracking purposes), and ensure they are paid appropriately.

approvals & workflows
Depending on what the invoice is for, how much it is, and whether or not it matches the PO, it might be the case that it can be automatically approved with an appropriate rule, approved by the processing clerk, approved by the AP manager, approved by the AP manager after being approved by the lead stakeholder, or may require C-Suite approval. The application must be capable of supporting arbitrary sequential and/or parallel approval chains that can adapted over time as the business situation changes.

supplier portal
The application must contain an easy-to-use supplier portal where the supplier can log in, up-load/PO-flip an invoice, get current insight into the invoice status, send and receive messages, manage a basic profile, and let the buyer know when their payment details change.

fulfillment/tracking (ASN)
The application must support capturing of fulfillment status and should support ASNs and other standard e-Documents, which a supplier should be able to communicate through the API or an appropriate e-Document format sent to a dedicated e-mail address. A buyer should know when the order was acknowledged, the expected shipping date, and when the order actually shipped with associated shipping information.

goods receipts/asset management
The application must support goods receipts (that can be created by the warehouse staff) and allow goods to be marked as assets, consumables, and goods-for-resale. The application should support basic asset management/tracking, especially if the organization does not have a specialized asset management system.

intelligent m-way match on full and partial invoices
The system must be capable of not only matching an invoice to a purchase order, but also to a goods receipt, contract, and even an existing invoice if it looks like a duplicate or an updated version. It must detect when an invoice is for partial PO fulfillment, associate it properly, and when an invoice could be matched against multiple unfinished POs, choose the most likely one based upon volumes (and, if the buyer is able to determine otherwise, allow the buyer to reassign as appropriate).

OK-to-Pay / payment system integration
The whole point of invoice-to-pay is to approve a payment, and then ensure that payment gets made, so while an invoice-to-pay system doesn’t need to support integrated payment capability, it does need to feed AP systems, preferably through a direct integration, but, depending on the payment system, the best it may be able to do is file-based integration through the creation of a daily pay / update file, which is then picked up by the other system on a daily basis.

ADVANCED

dispute resolution
Not all invoices submitted are going to be correct, or acceptable to the organization for one or more reasons. Disputes are inevitably going to arise, and a good Invoice-to-Pay / Account Payables platform will contain a built-in dispute resolution mechanism that will track all disputes, all communications related to the dispute, and all agreed upon resolutions.

credit-notes
Sometimes the result of a dispute, an audit, a quality issue, or a missing shipment will be a credit note. The system must be capable of tracking those notes and associating them to the appropriate invoice, or, if that invoice is already paid, the next most appropriate invoice, as well as tracking what the credit note was for, the original associated invoices, and the dispute, if any, the credit note correlated to. And it has to make sure that the payment information sent to the payment system is modified to take the credit note into account (and provide any appropriate information in the notes).

post-audit compliance
In many countries, (e-)invoices are subject to post-audit and reviewed by tax authorities after being issued. Why? They want to ensure they get any taxes and duties due to them. This model, which is mainly used by the EU and some Commonwealth countries, requires that e-invoices be preserved and made available for audit for a minimum time (which is often 7 to 10 years). But it’s much more than saving the invoice in an e-folder — the “authenticity and data integrity” must be insured by way of digital signatures, EDI, and/or other appropriate business controls.

clearance compliance
In many other countries, especially in Latin America and Asia Pacific (although they are now popping up in some European countries as well), clearance models are becoming the norm for e-invoicing. With these models are extensive regulations and specifications on when and how invoices (and sometimes subsequent payments) are to be exchanged (as well as preserved). The entire model is geared toward the elimination of tax evasion, and in some countries not only must the invoices meet a plethora of requirements, but must even be transmitted to the supplier through a government authority that will keep a copy of the invoice.

tax compliance (tariffs, etc.)
A good invoice-to-pay/accounts payable system will either contain detailed tax rate information, or integrate with a tax compliance system with detailed tax rate information, and use that to verify the taxes being charged on each invoice are correct. It will also track any tax exemptions the company has obtained and make sure those taxes are not charged, as well as track any tax it has to pay, but (may be able to) reclaim at a later time.

dynamic discounting
A good invoice-to-pay/accounts payable solution will support dynamic discounting and allow the buyer on a suppiler-by-supplier basis, and invoice-by-invoice basis, give the supplier an option to receive early payment in exchange for a slight invoice discount. This could be the same for every supplier, or different, and it can be one offer for, say, payment in 10 days, or multiple offers for payment in 5, 15, or 30 days (on 45 day terms).

supply chain financing support
A good invoice-to-pay/accounts payable solution will also support one or more supply chain financing options, such as invoice factoring, by supporting one or more third party services that offer supply chain financing for suppliers who need / want financing where the buyer cannot offer, or is not interested in offering, dynamic discounting or other early payment models.

deep coding support
A good invoice solution will not only accept invoices from any channel, and in any format; not only support customized, and customizeable, invoice formats from each supplier to allow for automatic data extraction and codification; but also allow those formats to evolve over time as needed so that, over time, the percentages of invoices that can be automatically processed, coded, and matched approaches 100% (and, hopefully, reaches 98%+). Basically, all data should be capable of being captured natively in the I2P solution in the internal format, and, as time progresses automatically extracted.

adaptive OCR/outsourcing correction support
Building upon the last requirement, we need to recognize that, even today, some invoices will still be (partially) handwritten (when the emergency plumber shows up to stop the flooding, the locksmith changes the locks on short-notice, etc.). As such, the platform should support (adaptive) OCR as well as integration with one or more codification services that will correct and complete the extractions for all invoices where core information could not be identified or the confidence is less than 90% for the extracted data.

fraud detection
Finally, especially for post-audit countries, the solution should contain some fraud detection capability, and at least be capable of ensuring the invoice is from a known supplier (through SIM/ERP integration), for products/services the organization has ordered (in the past), correspond to a PO if the category of the products/services requires a PO, not be for anything that was already paid, is for agreed upon (if they exist) or market rates, and is being requested to a verified account. While it’s almost impossible to catch and prevent all fraud (especially collusion where one party is internal), it should prevent the obvious or easily detectable attempts.

Again, this is not a complete list of what an invoice to pay module might have to offer, or necessarily should have, as systems should constantly continue to improve, but should represent a baseline of what the module must have to be considered a modern solution.

Come back for Part 33, which will be the final installment in our initial foray into Source-to-Pay, for a potential list of vendors with which you may begin your search.

Source-to-Pay+ is Extensive (P31) … Time for Invoice-to-Pay

When we started in Part 1, we noted that even though all core sourcing and procurement technologies have been available for twenty (20) years (although it is debatable just how good the initial versions of many of these applications were) … the majority of organizations still do not have what any modern analyst would consider reasonable support for the full, core, source-to-pay process.

However, now that inflation is back with a vengeance, anticipated savings is leaking faster than a bald spigot, and most organizations are in a cash crunch as a result of down sales during the pandemic (and now due to a lack of core inventory to sell), they need to update their procurement tech stack fast.

But, and this is the kicker, they can’t do it all at once. We went into a lot of the details as to why, but, basically:

  • the applications don’t work without data … and don’t work well without LOTS of data … clean, organized, enriched data … (that you don’t have now and won’t have for a while)
  • the applications don’t deliver without user training …
  • you need value out of the gate to justify the purchase … and good luck getting enough value to justify the license cost of an entire suite!
  • your users need to see results for them to adopt … and use … a solution long term

So, you need to figure out where to start. And after three posts, we figured it out — e-Procurement. We then spent a few posts discussing the need for e-Procurement, the benefits, the barriers to e-Procurement (which were not what you think), and providing you with a large list of vendors. But then we had to step back and figure out what came next again because, depending on the particular situation at hand, there were good arguments for contract management, spend analysis, strategic sourcing, and supplier management (but not invoice-to-pay). It took quite a bit of analysis, and the answer was spend analysis because, even if all things seemed equal, or one solution looked more attractive than another, spend analysis could identify the (biggest) opportunities and the solution best suited to the most / biggest opportunities, and so spend analysis always made the most sense to adopt after e-Procurement.

After that, it was difficult. But, if all opportunities are equal, or there is no one to do the thorough spend analysis that can help differentiate the savings opportunities that can be enabled by each S2P module, there still has to be a best choice for what’s next. And that was … Supplier Management. The reason? Just like you needed to get your spend data captured for everything to function (which is what e-Procurement does), no matter what you’re doing, you’re interacting with suppliers, so you need to manage them effectively.

Then it was easier. Even though you technically need to find the products and services before you contract for them, the reality is that you are already buying products and services, you already have contracts, and chances are you can’t find most of those contracts when you need them, don’t know what the obligations and deliverables are for anything that’s not available through the e-Pro catalog, and don’t even know the pricing, permitted price escalations, etc. Furthermore, most organizations without a modern CLM don’t know how many evergreen contracts they have, when they automatically renew if not terminated or renegotiated by that date, when key contracts they need are expiring, and so on. Nor do they understand just how much excess manual effort and time the organization is taking to re-negotiate existing or negotiate new contracts. They are also completely unable to do a proper analysis of existing payment terms, key risk clauses that are required for a new regulation, and so on.

Contract Management may not identify any big opportunities, but without a good, enforceable, contract that can be easily monitored throughout its lifetime, the reality is that the identified savings will likely never materialize. Thus, Contract Management was key to have in place before you started strategically sourcing, as you want to immediately turn the bids into contract terms before the process disconnect from not having a good CLM solution causes bids to be retracted “because they were only good for 15 days” or some other excuse a supplier will come up with to not honour a bid. And then it was time for e-Sourcing, the ora et labora of the savings-focussed part of the Source-to-Pay process, and the ORA in particular: Optimization, RFX, and e-Auctions.

And now that we’ve finally covered all the core upstream modules, and e-Procurement, there’s just one left, the one that comes after e-Procurement and the one we skipped because it’s relative value was limited compared to the other solutions (when you consider that any e-Procurement solution worth its price can accept and store invoices and do some minimalistic processing). This isn’t to say there isn’t value in the solution, as a good I2P solution will greatly increase invoice-processing and payment-related efficiency, reduce the manpower needed for 100% invoice verification, and enable financing and global trade. Furthermore, a great I2P solution will also enable other value-generation capabilities the organization wouldn’t have otherwise. In fact, over time, it will become one of the more valuable solutions since one analysis, sourcing, supplier management, and contract management take the waste out of the process and your organization becomes a Source-to-Pay leader, the key to maintaining S2P value will be efficiency and 100% capture and compliance. That’s why no Source-to-Pay implementation is complete without a modern invoice-to-pay/accounts payable module, and why you must implement it even if the initial estimated ROI is considerably less than the other solutions.

But what should you look for? And why? That’s the subject of our next part where we’ll break down the core in Part 32.

Source-to-Pay+ is Extensive (P30) … And Sourcing IS Very Extensive … So Here Are 75 e-Sourcing Companies to Check Out!

And now the next post you’ve all been waiting for! A partial, starting, list of 75 e-Sourcing providers that may (or may not) meet some, or many, of the core baseline capabilities we outlined in the last three parts of this series (Part 27, Part 28, and Part 29) as we discussed the Optimization, RFX, and Auction sides of e-Sourcing today.

As with our lists of e-Procurement Companies (in Part 7), Spend Analysis Companies (in Part 12), Sacred Cow Companies that do, or support, customized “spend” analysis on Marketing, Legal, and SaaS (in Part 13), Supplier Management Companies (in Part 20), and Contract Management Companies (in Part 25), we must again give our disclaimer that this list is in no-way complete (as no analyst is aware of every company), is only valid as of the date of posting (as companies sometimes go out of business and acquisitions happen all of the time in our space), and does NOT include any e-Procurement vendors that support simple requisition or quick-quote capability to select vendors already in the system as that is not how we defined RFX capability.

Furthermore, as we’ve said before, not all vendors are equal, and we’d venture to say NONE of the following are equal. The companies below are of all sizes (very small to very large, relative to vendor sizes in our space), cover the baseline differently (in terms of percentage of features offered, the various degrees of depth in the feature implementations, and differing levels of customization for a vertical), offer different additional features, have different types of service offerings (backed up by different expertise), focus on different company sizes, and focus on different technology ecosystems (such as plugging into other platforms/ecosystems, serving as the core platform for certain functions or data, offering a plug-and-play module for a larger ecosystem, focussing on the dominant technology ecosystem(s) in one or more verticals), etc.

Do your research, and reach out to an expert for help if you need it in compiling a starting short list of relevant, comparable, vendors for your organization and its specific needs. For some of these vendors, good starting points can again be found in the Sourcing Innovation archives, Spend Matters Pro, and Gartner Cool Vendor write-ups if any of these sources has a write-up on the vendor.

Finally, a second reminder that inclusion on this list DOES NOT imply Sourcing Innovation is recommending the vendor.

Company LinkedIn
Employees
HQ (State)
Country
Optimization RFX Auction
Aestiva 17 California, USA R
Archlet 46 Switzerland O R
Aufait 114 India R
Bamboo Rose 205 Massachusetts, USA R
Bideg 3 Turkey A
Bonfire 87 Ontario, USA R
Claritum ?? United Kingdom R
Cloudia 40 Finland R
Cobblestone Software 131 New Jersey, USA R
Corcentric 588 New Jersey, USA R
cosmoONE 20 Greece R A
Coupa 3674 California, USA O R A
Deep Stream 25 United Kingdom R A
Delta eSourcing ?? United Kingdom R
ebidToPay ?? Bavaria R
Elcom 18 United Kingdom R A
eSupplier 6 Dubai R A
FairMarkit 161 Massachusetts, USA R
FullStep 128 Spain R
GEP 4650 New Jersey, USA O R A
Intenda 111 South Africa R
Ion Wave 22 Missouri, USA R A
ISPnext 59 Netherlands R
Ivalua 849 Ivalua O R A
Jaggaer 1266 North Carolina, USA O R A
K2 Sourcing 10 Wisconsin, USA R A
Keelvar 117 Cork, Ireland O R A
LevaData 58 California, USA O R
LGX Corporation ?? North Carolina, USA O R
LiveSource 7 Georgia, USA R
loopio 304 Ontario, Canada R
Market Dojo 34 United Kingdom R
MarketPlanet 72 Poland R A
Medius 562 Sweden R A
Merlin Sourcing 29 Germany R A
MySupply 15 Germany O R
NegoMetrix (Mercell) ?? Netherlands R A
Newtron 54 Germany R A
Oalia 22 France R
Oboloo 6 United Kingdom R
One Market (LogicSource) 307 Connecticut, USA R
One More Source ?? Bulgaria R
Onventis 129 Germany R A
Pantavanij 213 Thailand A
Penny Software 35 Saudi Arabia R
PostRFP ?? United Kingdom R
PratisPro (SabancıDx) ?? Turkey R A
Proactis 557 United Kingdom R
ProcurementFlow 5 Estonia R
ProcurePort 8 Indianapolis, USA R A
ProcureWare (Bentley Systems) ?? Pennsylvania, USA R
Prokuria 8 Romania R A
Promena 20 Turkey R A
Prospeum 6 Germany R
Raindrop 27 Raindrop R
Ready Contracts 243 Australia R
RFP360 20 United States R
SafeSourcing 10 Arizona, USA R
SAP (Ariba) 2963 California, USA O R A
ScanMarket (Unit4) 60 Denmark R A
ScoutRFP 44 California, USA R A
Serex Procurement Solutions ?? Ontario, Canada R
Simfoni (EC Sourcing) 260 California, USA O R A
Sorcity ?? Texas, USA R A
SourceDogg 31 Ireland R
Sourcing Force 4 Ontario, Canada R A
SupplyFrame 310 California, USA R
SupplyOn 239 Germany R A
Synertrade 180 Germany R
TenderEasy (Alpega) 6 Sweden R
The Green RFP ?? Texas, USA R
Trade Interchange ?? United Kingdom R A
Vendorful 14 New York, USA R A
Vortal 188 Portugal R A
Zycus 1464 New Jersey, USA R A

And now, as you probably guessed, it’s on to Invoice-to-Pay in Part 31.