Category Archives: rants

CEOs are hugely expensive. Why not automate them?

As per Will Dunn, as published on The New Statesman

Especially when hiring a CEO who doesn’t understand what makes the business profitable loses Billions:

Starbucks Loses 30 Billion

and doesn’t understand what is critical to the company product to the point costs can never be cut no matter how high those costs may look on the spreadsheet because the net result is not only product failure, but grounding/banning of your product and expensive lawsuits that costs Billions:

Boeing lost 11.8 Billion in 2024

After all, if we’re hiring CEOs without any relevant experience, actual business intelligence, or even logic, then why not use Artificial Idiocy? It’s not like the occasional hallucinations will be any worse that an average CEO’s these days (who believes investing Billions on empty promises is a good idea) … and the actual compute costs, even if in the six figures, will still be a tenth (or [much {much}] less) of what a CEO salary and benefit package actually costs!

So if you insist on creating fictional “AI Employees”, why not kick off 2026 by starting with a job that, sadly, Gen-AI agents can actually do?

Here’s why you DO NOT want Agentic Buying and you DEFINITELY DO NOT want AI Employees

buying for you!

An AI Vending Machine lost hundreds of dollars!

Just imagine what AI is gonna lose on your multi-million dollar categories?!

And when you demand a certain savings that’s unachievable, it’s going to find a loss that equals the savings amount, multiply it by -1, and tell you that’s the savings.

< Stanford, Anthropic, Redwood, Meta, etc. studies on negotiation games, competitive scenarios, and goal-seeking behaviours, etc. >

So unless you’re looking to LOSE money …

Stick with classic automation and point-based AI where the automation runs everything for you, does all the verifications and data checks that can be automated, does all the standard analysis for raking and recommendations, and gets rid of 90%+ of the tactical time-consuming work, freeing you up for the manual review, safety checks, and strategic decisions where you, as a human, can check and find obvious supplier misunderstandings, frauds, and bad decisions for the long term because the system does the grunt work and pre-does all the standard analytics, freeing up 80% of your time to do more sourcing, more relationship management (to prevent problems and loss), and more decision making (when it’s hard to make the right decisions on numbers alone or its impossible to satisfy all the goals and choices must be made).

STOP PAYING PROCURETECH/FINTECH ADVISORIES A DOLLAR JUST TO LOSE THREE DOLLARS!

Last week, in our post where we asked if ProcureTech Generated Billions While Practitioners Lost Trillions, we noted three things:

  1. Approximately 1.8 Trillion Dollars (more than the annual GDP of 92% of the countries on Earth) will be wasted this year on Tech-Related Spending
  2. Approximately 600 Billion Dollars will be spent with the big consultancies and analyst firms who do Financial (Technology) and Procurement (Technology) consulting and advisory
  3. That’s three dollars lost for every dollar spent on big consultancy and advisory firms

So how do you stem the bleeding? Especially if you can’t STOP spending mooney on tech advisory because you can’t stop spending money on technology because you can’t survive in today’s digital world without it?

You STOP forking over (high) six and seven figures without a guaranteed return! In other words, unless they save you some coin, then your money they will not purloin!

More specifically, if they are promising outcomes, then (the majority of) their compensation should be 100% dependent on outcomes. If you don’t make bank, then their compensation will tank.

To be even more precise, don’t buy:

  1. any technology platforms where the majority of compensation is tied to successful sourcing events, transactions, etc.
  2. any GPO services unless it’s 100% outcome oriented
  3. any functional outsourcing unless the majority of compensation is tied to ROI

Now, the technology providers and consultancies will push back, steadfastly claiming that their technology and services are worth way more than they are charging, but here’s how you counter:

  1. you will pay a base annual fee for the platform that will cover 150% of their base hosting costs, so they won’t lose, and then a percentage of transactions, identified savings through sourcing events, contract value, etc. where the percentage is calculated such that if you save 100% of their promised savings, they will make 50% more than what you would pay on a fixed cost after negotiation — if they are so confident in their claims, this should be a no-brainer
  2. you will pay a fixed amount on each transaction, calculated based upon the expected savings before you sign the contract, and if they can deliver the savings, you will definitely be using them regularly — and, as with the Tech Provider, you will calculate this so that they win bigger than if you pay them a fixed cost IF they generate a return for you
  3. you will pay a fixed rate per hour that is enough to cover the assigned personnel cost (their salary plus 30% overhead), and any compensation beyond that will be dependent on the department delivering an ROI beyond a certain amount (which is the amount required to cover the basic fee you are paying them); and again, you’ll fix the compensation such that if they deliver 100% or more of what they promise, they will win big too

Now, you’re probably saying the doctor is daft by telling you to offer them 50% more than what you’d have to pay on a fixed cost basis if they deliver, but here’s the reality, without incentive, THEY WILL NOT DELIVER!

There is an 88% technology failure rate across the board, and 94% failure rate if it’s a (Gen-) AI project. The reality is, as we pointed out in our series on how, even if they have good intentions in the beginning, your (technology) vendor will screw you, the vast majority of systems fail to deliver, because, once the contract is signed and you have access to the system, they have zero incentive to do anything else for you.

Similarly, once they have you on a multi-year contract, why should the GPO or consultancy have any incentive to go beyond the minimum? If you want them to continually serve you and look for ways to generate a return for you, make it worth their while. And then you won’t be paying them one dollar just to lose three dollars in return!

This is where you start. Then, you question any consulting contract over 100K to 200K as a mid-market and 1 Million as a large global enterprise. At that point you have to define the value you expect and what gain-share agreement you are going to craft to ensure it.

Does ProcureTech Generate Billions While Practitioners Lose Trillions?

A couple of weeks ago, THE REVELATOR, in his AI Whispering asked Why does the ProcureTech solution side of the table make billions, while the practitioner side loses trillions (and more)? And it’s a fair question. Because even though the practitioners don’t lose trillions on ProcureTech and ProcureTech consulting (as that’s only in the Billions), they DO lose Trillions on Tech and Tech Consulting that the ProcureTech Consulting and ProcureTech providers SHOULD be helping them save money on.

To be precise, at least 1.8 Trillion is going to be lost by Practitioners this year on Technology and Technology Consulting. Earlier this year, in our post on SaaS Spending, we predicted that at least 1.5 Trillion would be wasted based on total industry spend and an average waste of AT LEAST 30% (due to overspend, unused applications and project failure), but we are now revising that up to 1.8 Trillion based upon a minimum projected spend of 5.4 Trillion based on recent Gartner estimates.

To put this in perspective, only 15 countries have a GDP in excess of 1.8 Trillion! In other words, the total technology spend wasted is greater than the individual GDP of 92% of the countries on earth.

But it gets worse.

If you add up the global revenue of the 23 Big Consultancies, which you will be using for ProcureTech, FinTech, and related consulting, it comes to 551 Billion.

Accenture 65
Bain 7
BCG (Boston Consulting Group) 13
Capgemini 25
Cognizant 20
Deloitte 67
E&Y 51
Fujitsu 26
Genpact 5
HCL Technologies 14
Infosys 25
Kearney 2
KPMG 38
McKinsey 19
Mercer 2
NTT Data 30
Oliver Wyman 3
Publicis Sapient 18
PWC 55
Recruit 23
BAH (Booz Allen Hamilton) 1
Tata 31
Wipro 11

And if you add up the global revenues of the 9 big analyst firms, which you will be using for ProcureTech and Fintech advisory, it comes to 51.5 Billion.

Clarivate 0.5
Forrester 0.5
Gartner 6.5
Hackett 0.5
IDC 4.0
IQVIA 15.0
Kantar 3.5
Moodys 7.0
S&P 14.0

That’s a total of 602.5 Billion you’re spending for ProcureTech and FinTech consulting and advisory in return for a loss of roughly 1.8 Trillion!

In other words, for every dollar you spend, you lose three. That’s the reverse of the ROI you should be expecting. You should NOT be investing in Technology or Technology Consulting unless you will get a 3 to 1 return. But what you ARE doing is investing in Technology Consulting and Advisory for a 3 to 1 LOSS! That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you should be doing.

So what should you do? STOP!

Or, if you can’t stop, change the game. More to come …

True Orchestration Platforms Are A Lot Rarer Than You Think. How do you find one?

In our last article we told you that you need a modern orchestration platform in order to deal with the application sprawl not just in an average organization but in your own department. However, the majority of today’s platforms are not orchestration platforms but ORCestration platforms, integrating your applications in a manner that is forceful, ugly, and impure, to say the least.

So how do you find a real platform? Well, for starters you can use the checklists in our first two part where Part I gave you the red flags to look out for and Part II gives you key features to identify.

But if you’re techie enough, or savvy enough, here’s a starting list of technical requirements that you look for. (There are more, especially if you’re looking ahead to 2035 and beyond, but let’s face it, you’re lucky if you’re running 2015 technology anywhere in your organization. So if you make it to 2025, that would be a quantum leap for you.)

Technical Requirements

  • Micro-Service Building Blocks that can be assembled together to support all existing and emerging internet an communication protocols
  • Transactional Blocks that encompass standard data-centric operations in the business back office around the information and finance supply chains
  • Blockchain Support for immutable records that capture data, ownership, and processing that has transpired
  • Context Aware as it’s not just data, it’s metadata of what it represents, who’s data it is, where it was obtained, when it was obtained created, and how it was accessed, why it was valid (and who validated it) in a secure, immutable, block
  • Policy Definition Support that can recognize the security and compliance policies of the integrated applications and ensure they are checked and adhered to before processing any request
  • Dynamic Routing that can ensure messages are re-routed when issues are detected to maintain (guaranteed) response times
  • Resiliency via decentralization and multiple service instances to ensure that one failure doesn’t prevent critical functions and processes from being completed
  • Adaptive when human intervention is required, it is recorded and new rules, and workflows, are generated to prevent a human from having to intervene again for the same problem
  • Secure as modern security protocols and requirements are built in at the core, not around the edges as an afterthought
  • Trustworthy full support immutable data objects, policies, and security independent of what systems are connected to the orchestration platform

Savvy Requirements

The whole point of Procurement is supposed to support the business, a business which must buy and sell to survive, and do so profitably. (That’s why Procurement is so focussed on cost, to keep expenses down, and supply assurance, to keep sales flowing.) This means that the business also requires Sales (who sells) and Supply Chain (who ultimately supplies) and that all of these units must work in harmony. However, fundamentally, without inputs, which depend on suppliers, there are no outputs, which means that the Supply Chain, and the support for the Supply Chain Ecosystem, is fundamental.

This means that the best orchestration solution will be one that is built to support the supply chain department’s integration requirements within the organization and with external partners, not just Procurement. After all, if you read the series Bob and I authored on Legacy Sourcing and Planning Solutions, you can’t divorce Direct Sourcing from Supply Chain and expect success.

So if you want a great orchestration solution, find one that was originally built for supply chain where the vendor has layered on out-of-the-box support for Procurement. This maximizes your chance for success as you will already know supply chain integration support has been taken care of.

Wondering where to start? Maybe start by taking a look at something like HubX12 built as a decentralized distributed network for next-gen supply chains. With its built-in support for modern and emerging internet and communication protocols, advanced chains of custody, and compliance, it could serve as the transaction backbone that you need to integrate existing systems and build custom capabilities both within your organization and your supply chain.