Category Archives: rants

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

Open Gen-AI Isn’t Just Dumbing Your Business, It’s Killing the Planet!

Open Gen-AI is not just one of the most dangerous technologies we’ve ever invented* (as it lulls the uninformed into a false sense of security who will depend on it to make increasingly more critical decisions that could have increasingly more disastrous consequences), it’s also about to pose the biggest threat to planetary survival!

As it is, an average Data Center requires at least 10X the energy consumption of an average American home per square meter, with Open Gen AI data centers (which require ultra dense servers with cores running flat out all the time) requiring even more energy than that. However, whereas traditional AI models, including traditional Deep Learning Neural Nets which can be optimized post-training to often 10% of their original size using techniques developed by MIT researchers (including those described in this article) are now smaller and more stable than they used to be, these models just keep expanding exponentially in a futile quest to have them do more and now require models thousands of times bigger (and more energy intensive) than traditional models, often to generate output that wouldn’t even net a C grade in a high school class!

Think about that and read this article by Kate Crawford on Nature on how AI’s environmental costs are soaring (which notes that even OpenAI’s CEO has finally admitted that the AI industry is heading towards an energy crisis as there just isn’t enough power to keep up with the exponential energy demands [with ChatGPT already requiring more power than 33,000 average American homes … think about that, if you shut down just TWO Open Gen-AI models, you could power an entire small city]) before needlessly throwing a solution you don’t understand at a problem you don’t even have (when a better process would eliminate that problem and replace it with a smaller, different, problem that traditional technology and a human with just a bit of training could completely solve).

Because Open Gen-AI is just NOT ready for prime time, and just because these companies raised Billions of dollars on false promises that it would be ready years or decades sooner than AI development has traditionally taken, that doesn’t make it our responsibility to adopt the technology before it’s ready.

* And if a man afraid of nothing acknowledges this, we really should listen! (See this article.)

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.

The Supply Chain of Supply Chain Talent is Not Only Broken … It’s Running On Empty!

A recent article in Forbes noted that The Supply Chain of Supply Chain Talent Is Broken, which it is, and has been for well over a decade. The problems started back with the global first world truck driver shortages back in the early 2000s, but the real problems were much deeper and hidden from view due to the fact supply chains were otherwise running smoothly and no one was looking behind the curtain or shining a light into the dark recesses of the supply chain.

Why? Because of the rampant digitization of procurement, logistics, and supply chain over the past twenty years, a time when globalization reached its peak, conflict was at a minimum, inflation was in the rear-view mirror, and natural disasters were still manageable, supply chains just worked. Predictable processes, routes, costs, and flows allowed simple systems to manage the supply chains almost automatically. Supply Chains didn’t need traditional supply chain talent to run; they needed buyers, logistics managers, inventory operations, and compliance personnel who could use systems — IT geeks ruled the day!

At the same time, seasoned supply chain professionals — negotiators, logistics professionals, and inventory/warehouse managers — were retiring in droves, and no one was replacing them. More importantly, no one was replacing them because there was no perceived need. These were the individuals who where doing supply chains in the 80s and 90s, before modern systems managed everything, when there were still lots of regulations to deal with (as the EU was still forming), when you didn’t always have container ships available (or easy container transportation to all locales), and when you would have to know, by rote, who to call when a truck wasn’t at the factory or the dock for a pick-up. When you had to do everything by phone and fax, because email was a luxury; when you had to deal with dozens of import/export regulations (and know how to create the reports by hand), and how to manage logistics scheduling on paper, especially when availability of certain carriers or personnel would change by the day. When you had to truly know how supply chain operations worked end to end, and not just push buttons on a virtual screen.

But then they retired, and no one replaced them. Even worse, no one was recruited to replace them. The organizations saw no need, since the systems did everything, the EU and harmonized regulations across regions made trade easy, and the big global carriers managed logistics for them. As long as they had negotiators, system operators, outsourced carriers, and outsourced consultants to do the rest, who cared? They certainly didn’t.

Furthermore, because there was no need in the organizations, people who studied Operations Research and might have went into Supply Chain went elsewhere, and as demand shallowed, so did students, but more importantly, so did apprenticeships. Now, with disruptions on the rise, globalization retreating, inflation resurging, supply chains breaking due to slowdowns, (port) shutdowns, and double canal slowdowns/closures (Panama and Suez), and current systems not designed for the world today, there’s no one who can handle the current situation. And that’s why supply chains are broken, talent chains are broken, and most importantly, why they are empty.

All of this happened behind the scenes because no one was watching, no one was thinking about the future, and no one was doing a risk assessment or managing the risks that were destined to come. All despite the fact that natural disasters were on the rise, political tension was on the rise, and we were being warned that a pandemic was the top global risk for over a decade.

Now we are at a point where software alone won’t fix this, consultancies who don’t have talent either (despite telling you to go to China for two decades) won’t fix this, and hope won’t fix this. The only thing that will fix this is the re-introduction of supply chain apprenticeship programs, as noted by the Forbes article, along with the return of retirees with actual knowledge to mentor the new recruits, which is missed by the article. Most organizations, or consultancies, these days barely have enough talent to manage their own operations yet alone train a batch of new recruits on the side, especially if they didn’t live through the rise in global trade in the 80s and 90s. The retirees did, and they have the knowledge the consultancies, and modern systems, don’t. Along with new recruits, it is their (temporary) return that is needed to fix the supply chains.

Thank you Vladimir Putin!

Thank you Vladimir Putin for saying what needed to be said.

(Open/Gen-) AI is dangerous. Very dangerous! And something needs to be done about it!

“Humanity has to consider what is going to happen due to the newest developments in genetics or in AI. One can make an approximate prediction of what will happen. Once mankind felt an existential threat coming from nuclear weapons, all nuclear nations began to come to terms with one another since they realized that negligent use of nuclear weaponry could drive humanity to extinction.

It is impossible to stop research in genetics or AI today, just as it was impossible to stop the use of gunpowder back in the day. But as soon as we realize that the threat comes from unbridled and uncontrolled development of AI, or genetics, or any other fields, the time will come to reach an international agreement on how to regulate these things.”

Transcript

I don’t know about you, but with respect to what has been advertised, these are the six variants of Open/Gen-AI the doctor sees:

Gender/Race-Biased: especially in HR; it’s trained on “good resumes”, but, guess what, when those “good resumes” were selected from a pool of hired candidates that have predominantly been white men, guess what the AI looks for?

Hallucinatory: too many stories to track now of AI creating fake summaries on fake articles by fake authors for which it created fake profiles; Lawyers have fall for this multiple times!

Harmful/Hateful: train it on open data which contains hate speech, just like a kid exposed to its first profanity, it mimics … non-stop

Murderous: multiple examples of self-help chat systems literally telling people to kill themselves (and then a few examples of people actually doing this) as well as self-driving systems ignoring the “shadows” of what were people RIGHT in front of them

Sleeper: the newest threat, sleeper behaviour that can go undetected for days, months, or years until a specific date or phrase is entered (in combination); the perfect sleeper agent!

Thieving: not only are these open AI plays generally trained on stolen data, but since all your queries and outputs are directly used (or indirectly influence) the network, they steal your data (even when the designers didn’t set about to do so)