Category Archives: Procurement Innovation

Tonkean: Making Enterprise Procurement work with ProcurementWorks, Part 1

Tonkean was founded in 2015 to transform the enterprise back office. Tonkean leverages smart technology to bring people, process, and technology together in a manner that revolutionizes how businesses operate, allowing people to focus on high value work that gets results, and not redundant data processing, unnecessary application usage (which requires unnecessary training and unnecessary time), or unnecessary emails. One of the big problems Tonkean saw with traditional enterprise systems is that anyone who didn’t need to use the system daily was resistant to learning yet another system they saw as difficult or cumbersome (which applied to any system that didn’t use their terminology), adoption was a major problem, and employees would constantly look for ways to circumvent the system. Tonkean’s goal was to solve the adoption problem by providing users a superior intake experience, that could be as simple as a standard form-based or natural language interface like they’d find on the web, that didn’t require any training and that helped these employees make their requests through official channels instead of sneaking through back doors and dark hallways.

After a few custom projects, they found an initial niche in the Legal department and created Tonkean LegalWorks to help Legal Teams with legal mail routing, legal matter intake, matter lifecycle management, legal discipline and category classification, conflict waiver processing, law firm onboarding, contract routing and review, and even legal risk monitoring. It brought together the systems used by Legal (email, word processors, specialized Legal Billing Management solution, etc.), any risk and compliance applications they use to ensure their lawyers and firms dot all the ies and cross all the tees they need to take on every case and practice in every state they are taking legal matters in, and any other enterprise applications the team used to work and communicate internally (Slack, Teams, etc.).

And while we’re not here to discuss LegalWorks, it is through the development of LegalWorks that they learned how to bridge the gap between people, process, and technology in a in a way that empowered their clients to spend more time on strategic (legal) work instead of redundant data entry and system usage, get more value out of the tools they already purchased, and be more productive and satisfied with their technology. They learned how to enable a department to use the tools they have in ways that went beyond the original use cases, and learned they could do more and set out to identify where the biggest needs were and where they could do more. And once they found Procurement, and realized that Procurement had a lot of the same challenges as Legal, but considerably more amplified (with more systems, more complexity, and higher stakes), they knew they had found an area where they could provide their enterprise clients with the most value (and especially those that were using the major S2P suites but getting low utilization rates due to lack of intake support and a lack of integration with other internal systems).

When investigating Procurement in their enterprise customers, they found that while the major suites were reasonably suited for, and well used by, the Procurement team in strategic projects, they weren’t used much in tactical purchasing, especially in tail spend, as most of the organizational users found the system too complicated and bypassed it whenever possible (as the P2P tool lives on the long tail of enterprise applications of choice for the average enterprise employee).

So, as with some of the new breed of vendors who started specifically with the goal of Procurement intake and/or orchestration, one of their first goals was to help their Enterprise customers get more value out of their big S2P suites (and Ariba and Coupa in particular; for example, they have Intake Orchestration for Ariba and the Coupa Intake Experience to help the organization route all indirect spend, no matter how far down the tail, through Ariba or Coupa). While that’s where they are still focussed (given their current Enterprise customer base), they’ve expanded their ProcurementWorks to be a full Procurement lifecycle orchestration solution, from intake to resolution, regardless of what solutions the customers have or don’t have, what enterprise applications the teams use to communicate, what external catalogs or data sources they need to integrate with, and what policies and procedures need to be followed. In this way, ProcurementWorks is a system-agnostic solution that wraps around the customer’s existing process and applications to orchestrate and better coordinate that process.

However, one major difference is that, to Tonkean, full orchestration means creating a solution that solves all of the Procurement related problems an organization’s employees have, not just Procurement requisitions or catalog buying. That means answering all of their Procurement related questions in addition to taking their product and service requests, guiding them to the right systems if needed, or being the one interface of choice if Tonkean can be that. That means a much smarter intake process that can take any Procurement related natural language request, interface with all of the organizational data sources, and provide an appropriate answer.

For Tonkean, that starts with a smart AI interface, that they call the AI Front Door. The AI Front Door, unlike many other LLM-based products, is not just ChatGPT in a shiny wrapper, but a hybrid solution based on in-house engineering, the client organization’s preferred LLM, and knowledge systems owned by the client. It’s a very sophisticated “chatbot” compared to most offerings on the market, a technical definition would be very extensive (and lose non-PhDs), but we can illustrate much of the uniqueness of the capability with a high level overview and an example or four.

For example, when a user inputs a request, the general approach the system takes is:

  • use their AI to process the question for the type, intent, and goal
    and inform the user if they have no information (or are unable to process it) while simultaneously
    redirecting any unanswerable query to a human expert for review
  • use internal, trusted, knowledge bases to get initial information and potential answers
  • feed the question, processed clarification, and internally retrieved knowledge into the organization’s LLM to provide Natural Language feedback to the user, which could be the answer, or a refinement question if ambiguity existed in the question or potential answers from organizational data sources, which causes (an extension of) this 3-step loop to repeat
  • verify the response is sensible before presenting to the user (and, if not confident, route to a human for feedback for future internal Tonkean model training while informing the user no relevant information can be found)

Thus, if the user asks if there is an agreement with Vendor V:

  • their AI Front Door will process the query and determine that the user is asking if there is a signed contractual agreement with Vendor V that is currently active, and potentially what that agreement is
  • create the appropriate queries for each organizational system that stores contracts and agreements
  • take the responses and construct a carefully engineered prompt for the LLM that will return an answer indicating if there are agreements, and, if so, what they are and where they can be found (possibly including a direct link if the document can be accessed through the Tonkean platform)

If the user asks if she can purchase a license for SaaS app S:

  • their AI Front Door processes the request, determines that the user wants to make a purchase, it falls in the software category, and asks a few clarifying questions about the type and purpose of the product and, if it discovers the organization already has a license for a tool of that type, asks why the other tool won’t do
  • the system takes the responses and prompts the user with a link to launch a purchase request, where the system then pre-populates key fields of the organization’s software license purchase request form based on its learnings from the AI Front Door interaction and data attributes from other relevant systems (such as budget information in the ERP)
  • the system bundles the appropriate information and prompts the LLM to create grammatically correct responses that not only explain the request to the Procurement Buyer, but a Supplier if an RFP is required
  • the draft form is then presented to the user to verify, and one click puts it into the Procurement Request queue (where it can be accessed from the ProcurementWorks My Requests page at any time)

If the user asks for the procurement policy for SWAG for the marketing event she is attending:

  • their AI FrontDoor processes the requests and determines its a policy question
  • it creates the appropriate pattern match, DQL, or index query for each of the organization’s policy document data stores and collects the appropriate responses and documents
  • creates an appropriate prompt for the LLM that appropriately forms the question while asking the LLM to use only the inputs fed to it to create the response
  • ensures the response that comes back has a decent similarity to a subset of the text from the documents and then presents the natural language summary to the user

If the user asks the system for the results of the hockey game he missed working late:

  • the system processes the requests, realizes it doesn’t have that information (unless, of course, the enterprise is a sports news outfit), informs the user it doesn’t have that information and ends that interaction there

In other words, it’s built to be the central information source and jumping-off point for all types of inquiries and tasks a Procurement professional or employee with Procurement needs is likely to have, with the intent of cutting out 90% of unnecessary emails, texts, questions, and requests an augmented intelligence system can answer or guide a user through.

Moving on, the core of the Tonkean Intake Orchestration Platform that their Procurement solutions were built on is a workflow automation platform with extensive built in workflow customization, data integration, and form creation capability. In the platform, the customer can build forms (using a no-code form editor) they need to power any Procurement process (which can be created and modelled using a no-code process editor) they have, and customize them for requesters, buyers, risk & compliance, IT, or any other department as needed. They used this capability as the foundation not only for their Coupa Intake Experience and Intake Orchestration for SAP Ariba (as organizations never replace major investments, but innovative organizations look to improve and expand upon them), but their guided buying experience, supplier onboarding, and tail spend automation (among others).

One key differentiator is that any workflow can be updated at any time, something which is generally not possible in your traditional Procurement Suite such as Coupa, Ariba, and Jaggaer. For example, many of their customers now require an additional AI Review of any platform that uses AI to determine the nature of the AI and any direct and indirect risks in its proposed application to the business from a technical, legal, and brand perspective. For example, if the vendor is using Open Gen AI (such as ChatGPT), there are technical risks in that these platforms have been repeatedly demonstrated to have biased, harmful (and even murderous), hallucinatory, thieving, and sleeper behaviour. There are direct legal risks in that you could be sued (and on the hook) if the AI makes a recommendation that ends up causing personal or business harm, and indirect legal risks if the technology was trained on stolen data or data that contained copyrighted, illegal, or national secret material. There are brand risks if the Open Gen AI product you are using all of a sudden suffers extreme public backlash for its actions (or your software results in a decision that tanks shareholder value or increases environmental harm). However, they have found that most of the suites they work with do not yet have many of these new “standard” compliance checks in their relatively rigid product workflows (and telling their customers to just include it in the InfoSec review), which increases the likelihood a key check will be missed. [Considering the attention that AI is getting and the fact that legal frameworks will need to come soon, not the best idea for a large organization NOT to be assessing AI risks now.] However, with Tonkean, it takes minutes to add a compliance check and ensure it gets done by the right people before a decision is made on any Software purchase or use.

In our next article, we will dive deep into the major components of the Tonkean ProcurementWorks offering.

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.

Take the Tedious out of the Tactical Tail and Autonomously Avoid Overspend with mysupply

The taming of the tail is tedious and that’s why it’s overlooked in many organizations beyond whatever a catalog can address. There are only so many strategic sourcing professionals, there are only so many projects they can handle, and only so much spend they can get under strategic management. After that, beyond what’s in the catalog, IF there is a catalog, it’s typically the wild wild west for Procurement — especially if it fits on a credit card or P-card. There just isn’t enough bandwidth to manage more than a measly modicum of the tactical tail in an average organization.

Many organizations believe it’s okay to ignore tail spend because it’s only 20% to 30%, and because they believe that overspend probably can’t be that high on small purchases. They’re wrong on both points. In most organizations, even when the strategic categories are defined to include 80% of spend, because products and services change all the time, organizational buyers and / or overworked sourcerers won’t always catch when new products or services should be included in a strategically managed category; and because p-card/T&E is never included in the initial estimate, tactical/tail spend that’s unmanaged is usually 30% to 40%. If it’s 40% that ends up being unmanaged when the expectation is 20%, that’s a lot. Secondly, spend analysts and tail spend analysts have regularly found that the average overspend in the tail is in excess of 10%, with some categories of spend routinely being in the 15% to 30% window because no one ever looks at it. And if your organization is losing out on 10% of 40%, that’s 4% that could go straight to the bottom line with a good tactical tail spend solution.

To put into perspective just how good 4% straight to the bottom line is, consider the fact that, in direct organizations, strategic events on carefully managed direct categories that are regularly sourced typically only net 2% as the categories have already been squeezed. It’s only the mid-tier categories where you will see higher savings rates, which will typically average in the 5% to 7% range at best as these categories at least go to auction or multi-round RFP regularly. So if you save 2% on the top 30% and 5% on the next 30%, that’s only a savings of 2.1% that hits the bottom line. In other words, if your organization has been actively strategically sourcing top spend for five or six years, your organization has twice the cost avoidance / savings opportunity in the tail. It may seem counter-intuitive, but it’s the truth. Let that sink in for a moment before you read on.

mysupply is the newest start-up that aims to tackle the Tactical Tail Spend space, which has been historically underserved since the first specialists popped up (and then disappeared) to tackle it in the early 2010s. Even today you can count the true tactical tail spend specialist solutions on one hand without a thumb, compared to the seventy-five plus sourcing providers, but the new generation of providers, and mysupply in particular, understands that no one wants their spend in multiple systems (as you can’t do integrated spend, PO, and invoice management otherwise, key for Procurement success) and are developing their system as an extension to current sourcing systems, not a replacement for.

mysupply, which is even available on the SAP app store for those that use SAP (Ariba) and want a quick-start into tactical tail spend management, was designed to integrate with, and feed into your existing sourcing / procurement platforms — and in the case of Ariba, will fully use the Ariba Catalog and Ariba PO system to manage all spend. mysupply allows for:

  • quick event definition for sourcerors short on time (though the App or ProcurementBot)
  • roll-out to organizational users who can do their own quick-hit RFPs/Auctions/Catalog buys (also through the app, if needed, or ProcurementBot)
  • integration with your intake platform of choice for event push to the sourcing team

While it’s not designed as a full intake (or intake-powered) platform, as it was built for tactical tail spend and not all organizational spend, it was built from the ground up with integration in mind (as their goal is not to replace any platform you might already be using, as they are going after the enterprise market) and has a lot of orchestration capability built in and could even serve as an intake platform if desired (and route requests that should be strategically managed spend to an existing strategic sourcing application or to mysupply, which can also be used for strategic sourcing if desired).

Event creation in mysupply can be super easy. Options include:

  • in-house LLM-assisted Event Creation and Management via API-powered ProcurementBot, that can be integrated through existing enterprise collaboration platforms (Microsoft Teams is in Production, further integrations are planned)
  • Existing event templates that define all of the items being sourced, data required for bids, and (pre) approved vendors (which can easily be augmented or removed) (any event can be saved as a template to kick off future events)
  • events from scratch, where the platform is very adaptive and you only need to specify as much information as is necessary to source the product/service, which, if already defined in the system, can simply be an RFP request and a due date

and, most importantly, all of these strategies can include

  • demand bundling, even if different products or services should be sourced using different strategies, which can be across buyers for a given timeframe (i.e. collect all requests for a week or a month and then source)
  • pre-selected, custom, or hybrid supplier lists
  • customized lots, as the platform allows sourcing by item (price) or lot (price)
  • multiple tender/go-to-market approaches (i.e. each lot can be designated for a different [type] of RFX or auction), where the approach doesn’t need to be selected until suppliers have confirmed interest AND initial bids are in (which is very relevant for tactical spend where you don’t know the market dynamics because you haven’t researched the market and/or don’t source the product or service regularly; it’s not like strategic spend where you know there are seven suppliers, and five will show up to a reverse auction)
  • automated negotiation via (lot-based) QuickBot or multi-line item QuickBot
  • multiple scenarios for negotiation award analysis (where the items can be broken up for further negotiation/award after an initial bid event based on total spend, number responses, etc.)

For the requester, integrated LLMs through ProcurementBot help the requester:

  • identify the product or service being requested
  • capture demand and critical requirements
  • select the category
  • be presented with the appropriate sourcing approach: catalog, self-service, or central sourcing (team)
    • for catalog, immediately make the buy by presenting the user with the available catalog options and allowing them to select one and complete the purchase (and then the bot completes the process in the source system)
    • for self service, flesh out tender specifics and select (pre-approved) suppliers and then ProcurementBot sends out the tenders and, when they are all returned, or a certain time has passed (as configured by the category manager in the mysupply platform) returns the quotes to the buyer through the initial chat channel (where they can select one)
    • for central sourcing, it collects the request and, if appropriate, bundles it with others that are then rolled up into a managed tender that is then put into a central buyer’s queue for management, which may happen before or after initial quote requests are sent to suppliers (if an event template has already been pre-configured)

Let’s dive into some key sections / capabilities for the sourcing professional.

Demand Management / Bundling

As above, the system can be pre-configured to bundle demand over a period of time for all requests for the same product or products in a pre-defined lot, but for the rest of the requests that come in, there is the demand management/bundling section. In this section, the buyer can see all of the requests, have mysupply suggest a bundling, and either pick a suggested bundle or create her own bundle. She can quickly search and filter to create custom sourcing project bundles and then immediately kick off a workflow to define a new sourcing project bundle.

When a new sourcing project is kicked off, the user is taken to a screen where they can select starting pre-defined supplier groupings that are relevant for each item requested in the demand bundle (and, of course, the system will not include duplicate invites if the supplier is in multiple supplier groups, so the sourcing organization doesn’t have to create intersection groups, just groups for each commonly requested item).

Standard Sourcing Process

Once the buyer defines a basic event through one of the workflows (kicked off from a single request or request bundle), the platform takes the user to the event summary. From there they can:

  • define the automation and starting strategy — the event can be setup to automatically select all approved suppliers, send the request out at a certain time, remind suppliers, automatically advance to evaluation when all starting bids are in or the deadline is reached, kick off automated negotiation rounds (where suppliers are given a chance to update bids based on rank information and built-in game theory negotiation strategies), and basically free the buyer until it’s time to evaluate the first round of bids and either award, or kick off another round — at this point, the buyer can change the negotiation strategy, and even split the event up into multiple parts; this is different from most platforms where the entire event structure, and strategy (single round, multi round, Dutch action, etc.) has to be defined up-front and cannot be changed — something which makes no sense in tactical tail spend sourcing where you don’t know the supplier interest or current market dynamics; note that the starting strategy can be multi-pronged based on event value (if the award can be done under 10,000, then just award the lot to the current lowest bidder; if under 25,000 use autonomous QuickBot negotiation and award to the lowest bidder on an item basis; if over 25,000, do a 2nd round RFP with the three best suppliers and more negotiation/bundling to motivate better pricing; etc.)
  • flesh out the request — quote breakdown (while it is tactical tail spend, you may still want shipping, handling, taxes, service fees, etc. broken out), basic information required, documents required, delivery and payment details that must be accepted, compliance requirements, etc.
  • invitation of the selected suppliers (where you can add or remove suppliers that were pre-populated from supplier groups appropriate to the items in the request)
  • the evaluation of the bids that come back – manually, autonomously, or a combination thereof;
    the platform supports best price strategies, threshold strategies (which allow the strategy to be dependent on the amount of the bid, i.e user-driven negotiation above a range, best price negotiation within a range, and best-price auto-award below a range), QuickBot single lot auto-negotiation, Multi-Item QuickBot, English auction, Dutch auction, ranking (based on weighted responses and costs), buyer awards (no auction/negotiation); it supports lot strategies (best distribution by single-item award or all split); it also supports multiple rounds if desired with pre-scheduled negotiation windows (for RFQs and auctions); and, finally, it supports automated awarding if strategies that permit automated awarding are selected (subject to conditions that can restrict auto-award based on LDO — Least Desirable Outcome — or MDO — Most Desirable Outcome — scenarios; however, note that this is just the starting strategy;
  • select one or more bids for negotiation and make an award (unassigned/unawarded items are summarized and the user can see, through color coding, the lowest cost among all offers, select one, and send it to the e-Procurement system; the user can even dynamically kick-off new rounds of the RFP/auction, which may have a smaller supplier set or introduce new suppliers if the responses weren’t acceptable )
  • manage Q&A with the suppliers

A great feature of mysupply is it is not built to replace your current strategic sourcing platform (which most organizations have), your existing catalogs and catalog management applications (they integrate with them through their extensive API support), or your ERP/MRP/AP system which manages your purchase orders (as they integrate with those too). It’s meant to fill the tactical / tail spend sourcing hole in most organizations and, in particular, help organizations with tactical sourcing teams and help desks become considerably more efficient so overall savings can be increased though effective category management practices that capture and encode organizational knowledge so the end users can make the right buys on their own as often as possible, ensuring that the tactical team can focus on higher spend tail spend categories and new categories (and develop the right strategies to manage those going forward).

If your organization does a lot of tactical / tail spend sourcing, mysupply is definitely a platform you might want to check out, especially since its ProcurementBot allows it to do intake through third party platforms organizational users are already familiar with (such as Microsoft Teams).

Another “think tank” article on digitizing procurement that’s off-the-mark!

A recent article in Supply Chain Brain noted that you should be seizing the opportunity for digitizing procurement and the doctor completely agrees. Nothing should be paper based in Procurement today. There’s no excuse for it.

And yes, multiple developments in supply chain are converging to create an unprecedented digital opportunity for procurement professionals. Furthermore, if you work on mastering and combining emerging and maturing technologies in strategic ways since procurement teams are in a position to reshape how they work, and create value across the supply chain, you can revolutionize Procurement and business performance.

But digitizing, by definition, means moving processes from scrolls to systems, from the dark basement to the illuminated screens. It DOES NOT mean that:

  • you use Gen-AI or even machine learning
    there may be tasks where you apply point-based ML, but that comes after the digitization of an appropriate process
  • you use cognification to illuminate (concealed) processes
    especially when it could illuminate you should never have digitized the process in the first place
  • you accelerate workflow through automation
    you automate what you can, and while that includes the acceleration of tactical paperwork processing and thunking, sometimes humans have to step back and think about the data received, insights produced, and options available before making a decision … you don’t accelerate whatever amount of time it takes a human to make a good decision (and, instead, focus on automating and accelerating any non-strategic tactical “thunking” tasks that prevent them from focussing their brain power where it’s really needed)
  • you go straight to content personalization
    when the users might not even know how to use the baseline systems (and, in the process, create a nightmare for the support personnel)

Digitizing Procurement starts by:

  • understanding what processes you are using now
  • understanding if they are appropriate or they should be optimized
  • identifying off-the-shelf best-of-breed modules, mini-suites, suites, and/or
    intake-to-orchestrate platforms and implementing them
  • identifying key points where RPA, ML, or other advanced techs can make the process even more efficient
  • then identifying the right advanced tech to use

Not starting with it. You should never try to run a race before you can walk. The only “impactful opportunity” identified in the article you should start with is

  • adopting ecosystem thinking to enhance data

At the end of the day, nothing works well without good data. So get the data right, and everyone aligned to get the data right, and that will get you further, and help you do better, than any piece of modern tech you can try to throw at the problem.

Orchestrate with ORO and Solve Your Source-to-Pay-Plus Challenges!

Yesterday we indicated that while 2023 was the year for intake, 2024 may be the year of orchestration. The reason? Including the buyer in the process and making it simple for them to get information on policies, do their own tactical purchasing, and engage with Sourcing and Procurement is only the first step to successful Source-to-Pay+ in your organization. The next step is simplifying the life of a Sourcing and Procurement professional whose job has become considerably more difficult with all the regulations they need to adhere to, the risks they have to identify and manage, the sanctions they have to comply with, the (knee-)jerk policies the organization has in place, the supply risks they have to consider, the supply assurance that has become as important as cost, and the collaborations across half a dozen departments or more just to get the job done.

ORO was built to be that next step. More specifically, ORO was built to be the orchestration platform for procurement workflows, enabling an organization to build as many Procurement workflows as needed, involving as many stakeholders as needed, while integrating as many systems as needed, to support the organization in acquiring whatever products and services it needs to do business. There are two key words here:

orchestration
as it was designed to ensure that all parties who needed to collaborate could collaborate and get the job done quickly and efficiently; and
workflows
there is no ONE procurement workflow; there is one workflow per product or service the organization needs, which varies based upon the value of the purchase, the supplier, the location (of the supplier), how the product or service is to be used, and so on; e.g. there might be a typical workflow for 10,000 t-shirts for re-sale, a quick-purchase workflow for 100 t-shirts for an event, and a lengthened workflow for onboarding a new supplier to produce the next 100,000 t-shirts you plan to purchase

In the example above, a typical workflow might be sending an RFQ out to your already on-boarded and approved suppliers and asking them for a cost and delivery date. In the second example, it might be allowing your marketer to just get 3 quotes from local print shops, verifying the quotes are valid, allowing the marketer to buy from the lowest quote on the P-Card, and that’s that. In the third example, it might be subjecting the supplier to an extensive compliance and risk analysis to ensure there is no slave labour in the supply chain, unsafe working conditions at the factory, counterfeit materials, denied party associations, and so on … and only then onboarding the supplier of interest for a full sourcing event.

ORO can do this because they have built a no-code platform with fully customizable workflows that can be built from scratch using any capability of, or data in, the product and connect with, pulling data in and pushing data out, any integrated solution through the APIs. This can be used to orchestrate intake requests (because intake is just another Source-to-Pay+ module, which they provide as part of their orchestration, configured to your liking), processes, forms, and organizational master data (which can be grouped into projects).

When an end user logs in, they see their home screen where they can start a new process (be it a purchase request, supplier onboarding, evaluation form, and so on), see all their current tasks (as well as the estimated duration and status), and an easy smart NLP-based AI-enabled search capability that can take questions and guide the user to appropriate processes.

For example, all they need to do is enter their business request in plain English, and then the platform will ask them clarifying questions to guide them to the right process. For example, if they say they want a 3D printer for pharmaceutical research, it will know that the buyer is looking for laboratory equipment and not a mass-market resin 3D printer for 3D part models for manufacturing and then ask the user if it’s small laboratory equipment (as they are doing preliminary research) or large laboratory equipment (as they are testing suitability for mass production). (If the details are sufficient, they can go down to level 4 in a category tree.) They can then identify the most likely suppliers, including those the company has done business with in the past, and if the approximate spend is known, bubble up the best fit to the top (and allow the user to click into recent transactions). If the right supplier (and product) is identified, the user can then kick off a procurement request, and based on the value, the system will either guide them through the process of purchasing it themselves or kicking it off to Procurement (because the amount is over their spending limit). It will also tell them how long the process typically takes and the steps they, or the buyer, will need to go through.

When the request gets to the buyer, they can review all of the information entered by the requester and stored by the system, see the process they need to go through, send the required RFPs and forms to the supplier, get alerted when the response comes back, if the response and price is right, kick off the order, and it’s done. Moreover, they can jump into their sourcing system if they choose to edit the default RFP or go through its built-in processes, or just wait for everything to come back through the API integration and never leave ORO for a predefined process. (This also means that the ORO platform can use the APIs to fully create the necessary event/process in the integrated tool and, if SSO is enabled, ORO can jump you right into the third party application, and if the third-party application has a fine-grained API, into the screen that is appropriate for the current process step.)

Processes are very powerful and can contain as many tasks (which can be built in-system, third party, or data collection tasks), approvals, (stakeholder) reviews, forms, documents, notifications, requests, and sub-processes as necessary, in any order. This means that as soon as an event is kicked off for a software product that may need a security review and privacy review, IT and the Data Protection Officer can be notified, they can let the buyer know if they have any particular concerns not covered in the standard onboarding processes that they want to address and data they want collected, reviews can be staggered or split so as to prevent a process from getting too far when non-compliance or unacceptable risk can be decided early, or to prevent risk and compliance analysis from slowing a process down when the perceived risk is low or a supplier can always be subbed out last minute. Processes that can be done in parallel, including approvals, can be kicked off in parallel to minimize time. And allowances for send-backs can be made to collect more information or correct situations without cancelling and restarting the entire process and losing the history. And an impacted party cannot only see their current task in each process but see the entire process at a glance and the progress to date. They can also access any associated forms, documents, and see the milestones that have been completed at various steps (which could be for future steps if they are stuck in an approval or something was sent back to them for further review).

ORO is highly configurable and in addition to typical settings you’d find in any old SaaS app, you can also configure the assets available to be used in the application by the users who have access to workflow / process construction, modification, and utilization. This means you can select the apps they have access to, the data in those apps they have access to, and so on. And it’s very easy to use with an extremely intuitive user interface.

When it comes to process creation, the conditions that can be used to drive the logic can be defined on any data element in the system, or any system ORO connects to, as well as any derived data or measure on that data element in the system, or any system ORO connects to. ORO makes it possible for you to find those data elements and statuses by grouping them into categories (custom fields, department, ERP, invoice amount, suppliers, users, working capital, assessment risks, etc.) and making selection easy. For example, if in the ERP Supplier Status Info, you might have “new supplier”, “activation required”, “currency enabled”, “new country”, etc. Furthermore, the processes can be configured to monitor the status (and data) at all times and automatically jump back to a specific step if any conditions change that would require reviews to be conducted again or new approvals. For example, if during an assessment, IT decided that additional security is required, and kicks it back to the vendor who indicates they will add it for an additional fee, and that causes the overall sourcing event to cross a certain threshold, approvals can be revoked and a new approval chain executed (if approval from the CIO in addition to the buyer’s manager is now required).

In other words, ORO is the orchestration platform you didn’t know you needed when you are stuck trying to manage disparate processes across different systems, track when things change, and ensure things get done.