Category Archives: Sourcing Innovation

Sourcing Success in these Turbulent Times Require Long Term Planning and Cost Concessions

This originally posted on January 2 (2024).  This is being reposted, in case you missed it, due to the rising criticality of Long Term Planning!

In a McKinsey article a few months back on How medium-size enterprises can better manage sources, McKinsey said that small and medium-size enterprises often struggle to find Procurement cost savings. Yet there are ways to do it while still pursing growth and providing a superior customer experience. The article, which concluded with an action plan for procurement cost savings, recommended:

  • establishing CoE teams
  • improving forecasting
  • expanding (the) use of digital procurement tools
  • gaining greater market intelligence
  • establishing a culture of — and process for — continuous cost improvement
  • incorporating supplier-driven product improvements

which, of course, are all great suggestions, and mostly address four of the five reasons that McKinsey give that prevent companies from reining in spending, which included

  • a lack of spending transparency (which would have to be corrected to improve forecasting)
  • talent gaps (which can be minimized with the right tools, market intelligence, and CoE teams)
  • underused digital tools and automation (which is directly addressed by using more of them)
  • exclusion of procurement and supply chain in business decision (which would hopefully be a byproduct of a corporate culture for continuous cost improvement that only happens when procurement and supply chain is not involved higher up)

but the fifth is largely unaddressed — the myopic focus on the short term which McKinsey claims could be addressed by putting more effort into planning and forecasting. But that doesn’t solve the problem.

Better forecasting will allow for longer contracts to be signed for higher volumes, which can lead to long term strategic supplier relationships, and better planning can allow this to happen, but this does not completely address the need for long term planning.

Supply Chains today are not the supply chains of the last ten to twenty years.

  • rare earths are even rarer
  • many critical raw materials are in increasingly limited or short supply
  • transportation can be unpredictable in availability and cost; even though most of the world declared COVID over in mid-2022, China still had mandatory lockdowns, ocean carriers scrapped many of their ships for insurance (and in some cases, post-panamax ships that had never made a single voyage), airlines furloughed too many pilots who found other jobs or just flat out retired, and the long-haul trucking in North America (the UK, and many first-world countries) has been on a steady decline for over a deacde
  • ESG/GHG/Carbon Requirements are escalating around the globe and you need to be in compliance (both in terms of reporting 1/2/3 and ensuring you don’t exceed any caps)
  • human/labour rights are escalating and you have to be able to trace compliance down to the source in some jurisdictions; you need suppliers who insist on the same visibility that you do
  • diversity is important not just to meet arbitrary requirements for government programs or arbitrary internal goals, but to ensure you have the right insight and expertise to solve all types of problems that might arise

And you can’t effectively address any of these problems unless you think long term AND accept that some of the solutions will cost more up front.

  • In mid November, the trading price for Neodymium (a rare-earth that is critical for the creation of strong permanent magnets, which makes it possible to miniaturize many electronic devices, including the [smart]phone you might be reading this on) was over $87,000 USD/mt. In comparison, hot roll steel was around $850 USD/mt. In other words, Neodymium was 100 times more expensive than steel. And while you can still buy steel for about the same price you could 10 years ago (it was around $900 USD/mt), Neodynmium is almost $20,000 more (as it was around $69,000 USD/mt in November 2013). It’s not the only rare earth to increase about 26% in 10 years, with further increases on the horizon. You need to have a strategy to minimize your need (which could include product redesigns that use more sustainable alternatives or recycling strategies that use recovered materials from older phone models). And when it comes to recycled materials, due to a historical lack of recycling efforts, or research into technologies to make recycling efficient and cost effective, recycled materials are almost always more expensive at first. Always. But as adoption increases, plants, technologies, and processes get more efficient, and the cost goes down (while, at the same time, raw material prices for materials in limited supply continue to go up). In other words, if you want to mitigate the ever-increasing costs for rare earths and other materials that are in limited supply, you have to incorporate the use of recycled materials, and maybe even invest in your own plants (and recycle your own phones you buy back because it’s cheaper just to buy them back and extract the rare earths yourself than buy the recycled rare earths from someone else).
  • Global trade is costly and unpredictable. Supply assurance is finally dictating near-sourcing and home-sourcing (which SI has been advocating for almost fifteen years, as inevitable disaster was the logical conclusion of outsourcing everything to China as eventually a pandemic, global spat, natural disaster, or other event would send shockwaves through the world when it severely disrupted the trade routes [because even though the chances of a pandemic, natural disaster on the scale of Krakatoa or the Valdivia earthquake, or another catastrophic event is minimal in any given year, over the course of a century, it becomes very likely]), and that is going to require re-investing in those Mexican factories (that worked just fine, by the way) you shut down twenty years ago, training appropriately skilled workers in low cost North American (or Eastern Europe) locales, and paying a bit more per unit (and even transportation until the carriers rebuild those routes). But in the long term, as global transportation costs continue to rise, and the local-ish resources get much more efficient (using the best technology we have to offer), your costs, and transportation risks, will go down while your competitor costs continue to go up.
  • if you don’t insist, and ensure, up front that your suppliers can report the data you need, how will you get it; chances are those suppliers need help and modern systems, which temporarily increase their operational costs as they install, integrate, and learn the systems; not more than a few cents here and there per unit, but a noticeable blip on the overall costs none-the-less
  • if you want suppliers that monitor their supply chain and insist on no slave/forced/child labour, appropriately treated and well paid labour, and, better yet, a community focus throughout the supply chain (so that the humans who mine the materials, harvest the food stuffs, weave the silk, or otherwise do the foundational work have a reasonable quality of life, health, and safety), you’re going to have to put the effort in to find them and the extra money to support them in their humanitarian efforts; since most of these workers in remote low-cost locales are paid pennies on your dollar, it’s another blip on the total cost to ensure they are paid every penny they deserve, but it’s still a blip; but you can’t afford not to do it if your jurisdiction has laws making you responsible for slave labour that later gets discovered in your supply chain
  • and while diversity shouldn’t cost more, since it’s the same number of employees, the reality is that the supply base embracing it could be a minority, and if these minority suppliers suddenly become in demand, market dynamics may kick in and they may charge a premium that your competitor will pay; but, as new challenges continue to arise, you will need the diversity to solve them; so, another blip in the cost you need to absorb

In other words, you need the long term focus to guarantee success, and you need to understand that, up front, it may cost a bit more. However, done right, your costs will decrease over time while your competitors’ costs skyrocket. So if you truly want success, in any high dollar, strategic, or emerging category, plan for the long term. And you will truly succeed.

666+ S2P+ Solutions … But Key Problems Are Still Not Addressed! Part 2

In Part 1 we noted that, by now, you should have seen the Mega-Map and the 666 solution logos on it.

We also noted that you will have repeatedly heard the doctor and THE REVELATOR say repeatedly that another massive purge is coming to our space over the next 18 to 24 months (which will be the greatest since 2009-2011 where hundreds of companies were acquired, merged, or went insolvent), and that it’s already starting (with a few notable insolvencies, at least as far as the doctor is concerned, already occurring).

And you’ve heard us say multiple times that there isn’t room for this many companies because even if you account for market size and vertical, we still only need so many solutions that more-or-less do the same thing.

That being said, there are still core needs not being met in the modern enterprise, especially given that we are seeing a return to protectionism, sanctions, and border closings; a continual rise in natural disasters; and a continual disruption in logistics. Solutions are needed that go beyond siloed Procurement. And any company that steps back, analyzes the problem and the needs, and takes the time to define, and build, something truly new still has a chance to breakout and succeed in today’s overcrowded SaaS market.

the doctor is not alone in this understanding. Back in 2022, THE PROPHET saw this need to rethink Procurement Technology and that’s why he proposed his alt-suites. And while we believe he didn’t get them all right, some of the fundamental issues he saw and reasoning he gave, when expanded upon and thought through, will lead you in the right direction. Just like two of our last three suggestions were built on the core ideas behind his DFS [Design for Sourcing] (which was almost perfect) and A2M [Assess to Monitor] suites, two of today’s take some ideas from two of his suggestions as well.

4. Third Party Management (TPM)

Now, you’re probably saying “wait up, we already have that” since we have third party risk management and third party compliance management solutions starting to pop up, but those just represent a slice of Third Party Management requirements. Now you’re probably saying “but we have some very extensive supplier management solutions that do development and performance and they can be used” but the answer here again is that they represent another slice as they are not only supplier centric, but typically found in organizations that need to manage direct suppliers for quality and cost control — and typically not used to manage partners for consulting or implementation (which those systems have no capability to support).

Just like an organization needs a Risk 360 for it’s Risk Management function, it needs a TPM system to fully monitor and manage the third parties it works with, regardless of what it uses them for. Having separate systems for product suppliers (SXM), contractors (CWM), services providers [for implementation, integration, and support) (TPRM), etc. not only gives a fragmented view of the organizational partner ecosystem, but doesn’t even give a complete view for any single partner. A services partner may provide you with internal headcount (CWM) and third party service outsourcing (TPRM). A product partner may provide you with goods (SDM) and select services (TPRM). And so on. Plus, there’s also quality control systems and customer support systems that will have relevant data on the partner performance.

In other words, you can’t just Assess-to-Monitor from a Risk perspective, but you also need to manage and develop as well. And while you might think that Risk360 could be a sub-offering, risks go beyond the entities you are dealing with to include risks that are independent of partner and sometimes specific locations.

5. Vertical Enterprise Project Management

Now, before you say the doctor has lost it, because we have more project management systems than we can shake a stick out, the reality is that most of these “project management” systems don’t really manage projects across the enterprise, and most don’t support anything beyond timelines, milestones, and resources — not nearly enough to handle the intricacies of complex projects that involve the entire enterprise like NPD/NPI, building/facility construction, partner-aware supply chain (re-)design, and so on.

When THE PROPHET said we needed Commercial Value Management (which was defined as the next generation of Contract Lifecycle Management), he was onto something … because no one really “manages” contracts; no one really takes full advantage of what modern, advanced, contract modelling/creation/analysis systems can do; and no on ever pulls the contract out of the electronic filing cabinet unless there is a dispute … even though it is the foundation of the relationship and should be used as the baseline for relationship management. Commercial Value Management was defined to fix all that, putting the contract at the center of organizational “value”, but “value” is nebulous, and organizations have already proven time and again that they only thing they want to do with a contract is redline it, sign it, and resign it to the e-filing cabinet.

However, at the core of the CVM concept is an ability to manage projects off of the contract, projects that would span multiple departments throughout the enterprise. That is useful. If we focus in on that and then realize the problem with most “generic” project management solutions is that they don’t meet specific organizational needs because every vertical has its own unique project needs, we can see that what enterprises need is true enterprise-wide project management support tailored to its vertical. Software that understands the intricacies of construction/facility construction and how it requires the coordination of sub-projects with many contracts and subcontractors, as well as temporary assignment, use, and return of equipment. Software that understands NPD in electronics and how the quest to even determine if you are going to design a new mobile personal computing device will require input from the entire company tailored to electronics project design, component and supplier identification, supply chain design, customer support, etc. Software that understands the unique aspects of identifying an organization’s needs before, during, and after the rip-and-replace of an ERP system and all of the project aspects that will be required (process analysis, data analysis, gap analysis, integration requirements, change management, training, etc.). And while there are tools to support the core activities in the core departments, none take an enterprise view and, further more, can link into the TPM system, ERP/Inventory/HR system, CLM system, etc. and take a truly enterprise view of project management customized to a vertical.

And while it’s possible that someone could build a baseline solution that can support multiple verticals, the front end and customizations required will require separate offerings for each vertical that company goes after. Efficiency, which should be the goal of technology acquisition, cones from supporting integrated processes, not piecemeal tasks.

6. Real-Time True Enterprise Analytics

This is a bit of a cheat in that the doctor knows of one system that can do it (Spendata), but the reality is that the vast majority of enterprise analytics systems claiming to be “best in class” cannot. Even the majority of “best in class” spend analytics solutions don’t even permit true, real-time, do-it-yourself spend analytics.

At a minimum, a modern analytics system must be capable of:

  • pulling in any type of data from any source in real time (and mapping it to a structure that supports analysis)
  • allowing the user to define whatever rules are necessary for cleansing, enrichment, validation, and mapping to not only the internal structure but multiple, simultaneously supported, taxonomies for analysis
  • defining as many derived dimensions as necessary, on whatever calculations and metrics are required
  • supporting as many cubes as are required to accommodate the different data sources being pulled in
  • enabling federation across as many cubes as are required for the analysis
  • managing not only supporting multiple views across the federation, but linked views that support simultaneous drill down
  • creating arbitrary, reusable, filters that can filter on an dimension using any value, or calculation, as is required
  • enabling derived cubes, federations, and views as needed to support dependent, what-if, and problem specific analysis
  • performing data updates in real time, and then propagating those updates through all affected cubes, federations, and views as well as all derived cubes, federations, and views in real-time
  • permitting a user to do all this, on demand, in real time

Most current Business Intelligence (BI) solutions are still based on ROLAP, at best, and all analysis is done against fixed cubes that are updated on a schedule (or on demand, but the entire cube needs to be recalculated before any analysis can be done). They also generally support fixed view types on the provided ROLAP cubes, and an analyst is very limited in terms of what they can do.

The same goes for most Spend Analysis systems. The providers support a fixed number of cube types, give you a default set of reports and dashboards, and you are limited to customizing views on those cubes and dashboards. Building whatever you want, whenever you want, from scratch is out of the question, as is real-time data updates. The best solutions will allow you to bring in additional data to augment your analysis, but unless it’s in the main database, it will be lost when the analysis expires, which is whenever the core cube is updated as only one of these solutions currently supports true inheritance.

In other words, a Strategic Spend Terminal is not enough. Not even close. In fact, it’s just one view, tailored to Sourcing, on the federated data sets that such a next generation analytics solution will support. In fact, there should be multiple strategic spend terminals, one per business unit that shows them the data they need the way they need to see it to allocate their time and effort accordingly.

Until analytics is rethought at the core, users will never be able to do the what-if analysis they need on different data types to get the insights they need when they need it, and AI won’t solve the problem. AI allows for better predictive analytics IF you have the right, verified, structured, data and IF you know the right AI algorithm to apply to the question at hand with the data you have. If you don’t have the right platform, AI is ultimately useless.

666+ S2P+ Solutions … But Key Problems Are Still Not Addressed!

You’ve seen the Mega Map and the 666 solution logos on it.

You’ve heard the doctor and THE REVELATOR say repeatedly that another massive purge is coming to our space over the next 18 to 24 months (which will be the greatest since 2009-2011 where hundreds of companies were acquired, merged, or went insolvent), and that it’s already starting (with a few notable insolvencies, at least as far as the doctor is concerned, already occurring).

You’ve heard us say that there isn’t room for this many companies because even if you account for market size and vertical, we still only need so many solutions of the following varieties:

  • Sourcing
  • Supplier Management
  • Spend Analysis
  • Contract Mangement
  • e-Procurement
  • Invoice to Pay (I2P) / Accounts Payable (AP)

And even when you consider the wide variety of needs across all possible size – vertical -region combination, two to three dozen solutions in any category is more than enough to handle all of the complexities when you take even the most varied companies into account, but we now have over a hundred options in some of these categories. Only the strong, sorry, the smart, will survive … and only if they have enough money to do so (and enough control to make smart decisions, i.e. if they are controlled by greedy investors who double and triple prices that force them out of their target market, they will be the next casualty).

But even with all these solutions, core needs are not met. The reason being: in today’s business environment that is seeing a return to protectionism, sanctions, and border closings; a continual rise in natural disasters (thanks to global warming that will once again reign unchecked under administrations coming into power in multiple “first world” countries); and a continual disruption in logistics (due to epidemics, pandemics, reduced capacity, Panamanian droughts, and Houthis in the Red Sea), solutions are needed that go beyond siloed Procurement.

Back in 2022, THE PROPHET first tried to get the message out there with his proclamation that alt-suites would rise. (They still haven’t, but we do need new types of cross-functional applications.) He also made five predictions. They varied in terms of usefulness and vision (in the doctor‘s view, two in particular are desperately needed, although one of these needs to be broader than defined; one is nothing more than just an enhanced dashboard across various S2P applications and needs to be rethought, and two aren’t quite right [but contain ideas that can be built on]).

But THE PROPHET was right in that we need to rethink Procurement Technology in some organizations, who needs to contribute to Procurement, and how Procurement Process fits into overall operational processes. The solutions that worked for the last 20 years aren’t always enough anymore, and it’s not just a question of “intake” (which is not new despite what the providers will have you believe, see our prior posts on the subject) or “orchestration” (which is just a fancy term for SaaS middleware).

Here are three solutions that are needed now more than ever:

1. Design for Supply (DFS)

THE PROPHET was right on the money here. Not only is 80% of the cost locked in during design, but so is 80% of the risk. You not only need cost control, but you need supply assurance. This means that R&D needs to work with Procurement during design to ensure the products can be sourced affordably at low risk, and that Procurement needs to work with Supply Chain / Logistics to make sure the products can be reliably sourced in a timely manner (and the organization won’t have to stock months and months of inventory). Product design and development organizations need integrated DFS solutions that span R&D, Procurement, and Supply Chain.

2. Supply Chain Sourcing (SCS)

In the world of Direct, when organizations need to source for BOMs (Bill of Materials), they need to do it Supply Chain Aware. Under pressure, Procurement will always search for the lowest cost — but what if that is from a supplier in an unstable region; that is not part of the current, optimized, supply network; that can’t offer timely and secure delivery? Sourcing needs to be supply chain aware. And Supply Chain needs to be aware of what Sourcing is looking at so they can do network planning if the current supply network is not sufficient.

In fact, it would be even better if the DFS and SCS solutions were hosted on the same underlying platform.

3. Risk 360

This was the second platform where THE PROPHET was almost right on the money as well with his Assess-to-Monitor alt-suite. Risk is everywhere, both inside and outside the organization, inside and outside your partners’ organizations, inside and outside your suppliers’ organization, and its everywhere your physical, financial, and digital supply chains touch. Supplier risk, supply chain risk, cybersecurity risk, personnel risk, etc. can’t all be separate solutions. They need to be one integrated platform that constantly monitors, assesses, and protects your organization.

There are, and will continue to be, a need for new solution types, in S2P+, but these would be a great start!

oboloo: Bringing e-Sourcing to the SME masses

e-Sourcing is a critical part of proper strategic procurement, but one that not a lot of SMEs and lower-end mid-markets have access to due to the cost of most strategic sourcing suites designed for the upper mid-market and enterprise that are beyond their budget, typically leaving them with only ultra-basic RFX solutions which are not enough.

In contrast, oboloo offers a Source-to-Contract platform with basic supplier management, contract document management, and savings management capability which can be obtained for $1,000 / user / year, allowing a SME Procurement department of 5 users to obtain decent sourcing software for 5K a year and put it on a P-card.

e-Sourcing

Their new, V2, e-Sourcing module is the core of the recently upgraded platform and allows an organization to build and issue RFIs, RFPs, and RFQs custom tailored to their needs for every event.

The entry dashboard to the Sourcing module allows a user to search the sourcing event database by opening and / or closing date, location, department, category, sub-category, event type, and event creator. From this dashboard, the user can access an existing event they have access to or create a new event.

If they choose to create a new event, they start with the sourcing wizard that allows them to configure the RFX event as a collection of (pre-defined) (standard) sections for internal use, standard information gathering (supplier questionnaires), event specific supplier sections, and a pricing section. (There’s only one standard product/item pricing template at the moment, but they are looking at including more for services [based on rate hours] and/or [manufacturing] cost breakdowns in future releases. If the user desired a more detailed price breakdown, they can attach an Excel spreadsheet.)

The platform walks the buyer through the process of

  • defining the activity that captures all the sourcing meta-data
  • selecting the sections for internal use
  • selecting the sections for supplier response
  • selecting the standard questionnaires (sustainability, security, etc.)
  • defining the pricing request
  • attaching any supporting documents
  • defining the scoring criteria
  • inviting the suppliers

Internal sections might consist of information on evaluation criteria and current pricing and cost structures.

Supplier sections consist of relevant criteria on required confidentiality, contact information, implementation plans, and future roadmap. Once a section is selected, it can be edited as needed.

Questionnaires are for the gathering of standard security and privacy information, sustainability information, service and support information, quality assurance, and other standard information required of any supplier for the product, category, or doing business requirements.

The pricing section is where the products are defined, by name, code, unit of measure, and quantity. The buyer can add as many products as she wants.

Once the products are defined, the buyer moves on to the scoring section where she defines the weighted scoring across each section included in the RFX.

Finally, the user selects the suppliers she wants to send the RFX to as well as the contacts at each supplier who will receive the RFX. If she chooses, she can switch to a supplier view before issuing the RFX. When she’s done, she presses send, and the RFP is complete.

The whole process can be completed in 10 minutes if the products are defined in the system and the buyer is okay with standard templates.

With regards to the construction process, the platform comes with a suite of standard sections and questionnaires that the buying organization can start with, and then the buying organization administrator can alter these as desired upon implementation.

Once the RFX is complete, and issued, the buyer can easily access the current status at any time. They can see which suppliers have responded, what they have responded to, and where the RFX is in the process. Once the RFX is closed, the buyer can start scoring and once scoring is complete, make an award.

Scoring is done on a section by section basis, with the information for each supplier displayed in consecutive rows for each supplier. The platform supports multiple scorers, and the weighted average will be used across scorers if multiple scorers are defined. Once scoring is done, the buyer sees the average score by section by supplier as well as the average score by supplier and can then mark a supplier for the award.

Contract Management

oboloo defines their contract management as a customized document management system, and that’s essentially what it is. It’s simply a repository for tracking organizational contracts, indexing them with metadata, defining relevant dates and alerts, and providing some basic reporting. But for most small organizations, that’s all they really need. They don’t use complicated contracts, they don’t want a separate document management system they won’t use, and they certainly don’t need the ability to define extensive clause libraries with multiple versions of each clause.

With respect to reporting, the system tracks expiring contracts by month, and can break them down by department, location, category, manager, type, etc. The user can also search across all of these criteria to quickly identify contracts of interest. It also tracks the number of documents (not) approved, the number of documents that have expired, and the number of contract records associated with suppliers that have been marked approved. And, of course, it can be setup with automated alerts/notifications to let the buyer know when contracts are coming up for expiry, when they are expired, etc. (And, of course these alerts/notifications exist throughout supplier management, RFX, and savings tracking when tasks are due.)

Each contract is a record consisting of key metadata classifiers, owners, financials, termination information, associated information, savings tracking, and a change log.

Supplier Management

The platform is defined as a basic supplier information and performance management platform that can maintain records for all suppliers used, or invited, by the buying organization and these can be searched by key identifiers that include industry, sub-industry, supplier type, preferred status, location, active (status), and contract as well as supplier name.

Supplier records are rather basic and consist of basic identifying information, owners, contacts, contracts, and scorecards. Performance management is scorecard centric in the application, and scorecards are also used to manage risk and track sustainability in the platform, as the buying organization can start with oboloo templates and set up their own to track the information they are interested in from a supplier performance management perspective.

Like contract management it is also fairly basic, but that’s what most SMEs and small midsized organizations need. Most of them don’t need extensive records on suppliers they are mainly buying indirect and MRO products from, and performance management is just a matter of ensuring quality, timely delivery, sustainability, low risk, and adherence to contract(s). This makes it easy for the buying organization to define and manage their suppliers.

Savings Tracking

Savings tracking is a simple module where, on a product, or contract, basis, a buyer can setup a savings tracking project on a fixed or variable time period for a set number of milestone dates. The buyer defines the product(s), current baseline spend (adjusted for the quantity, the projections, and then, at every milestone, defines the actual spend and the platform automatically computes the savings (or the lack thereof) and, once the last milestone is entered, computes the savings for the project.

As with the contract module, the system can then create meta-reports across all savings projects by month, year, and all time, as well as the remaining projected savings (and percentage). This can be broken down by category, sub-category, location, department, saving project type, and the responsible buyer.

Configuration

The platform supports roles-based security, comes with four pre-defined roles, and more can be configured to define created, read, edit, approval, archive, and similar rights across each module. Each user has a role as well as a unique profile.

It also supports the ability to define the industry and sub-industry hierarchy, the category and product hierarchy, corporate locations, departments, and each element type used by the system as identifying metadata (such as sourcing, contract, supplier, saving, document, etc. type). In addition, all of this information can be uploaded from excel (csv). The backend is built on APIs and the next version will have well-defined open APIs for data import as well as third party software integrations by 2025 Q1. Finally, users can select their currency (and define their preferred exchange rate) as well as their language, with approximately 15 languages currently supported.

Finally, the user can see their current licence and the corporate administrator can see all the currently active user licenses on the platform.

At the end of the day, oboloo contains the basic functionality you found in best-in-class first generation sourcing platforms almost two decades ago, with a few key differentiators. It’s a fully modern cloud-native SaaS stack, which can be fully self-implemented and self-configured, with a streamlined UX for SMEs, fully customizable template sections to allow for supplier records, contracts, RFXs, and savings projects to be created in minutes (vs hours or days). Most importantly, all of this comes at a cost that is a fraction of what these early SaaS platforms used to cost (and of what most [mini-]suites targeted at large mid-market and above, with a lot more bells and whistles than SMEs need, cost today), allowing a small sourcing team to get started for under 10K instead of having to spend 100K or more.

Are the Seven Suites Sailing the Seven Seas Sans a Sextant?

Post Edit: The summary on LinkedIn has been removed. Note that this is an opinion piece and read why it was removed from LInkedIn in the Social Media Policy.  [Also note that this is about [marketing] direction, not about the actual platform, which we have covered, or advised the coverage on, here or on Spend Matters (in the past)!  (See the end of this article for links.) We have recommended all of these suites and will continue to recommend them from a product and platform perspective where they are a great fit (even if we lament the [marketing] direction).]

You knew this was coming. It was foreshadowed in our top 10 ways to be labelled as a (Procure)Tech Noise / TroubleMaker article. (Where satisfaction was guaranteed if you followed the advice.)

Basically, in this new age where hype trumps straight-shooting, fake Gen-AI* trumps HI (Human Intelligence), intake and orchestration trumps the ability to actually do Proper Prudent Procurement, and carbon calculation trumps the ability to actually do anything about carbon reduction, the question becomes are the senior stalwart suites, who have an install base, good recurring revenue, and the ability to weather storms, staying the charted course or straying off towards the rocks and the siren’s call?

More specifically, are the seven suites that have ruled the enterprise Source-to-Pay Solution Maps since those maps were introduced still staying the course and slow and steady moving towards the next generation of real Source-to-Pay solutions that will solve real customer problems, or getting lured in by the siren’s call and sailing towards the rocks (and inevitably delaying the next great version of their platform)?

After noting we have links to previous in-depth coverage at the end of this article (so you can get the full picture), let’s take them one-by-one:

(SAP) Ariba

As far as we are concerned, SAP has been sailing without a direction since they acquired Fieldglass and Concur in 2014 (after acquiring Ariba in 2012) and formed the Intelligent Spend Group in 2015 (which has since seen numerous changes in leadership, direction, and even interpretation). They started off with a great idea (like Jaggaer who came up with “One” in 2018 after acquiring Pool4Tool and BravoSolution in 2017), but never really did anything significant with those acquisitions. (We can’t say why, but numerous leadership changes suggest disagreement on direction and priorities.)  They are still, more or less, three solutions, on three stacks, which aren’t deeply integrated … unless, of course, you buy their new brand-spanking new Spend Control Tower which will integrate all your Procurement, CWM, and T&E spend, as well as your HR/payroll spend and other un-captured spend if you have other SAP modules or modules that integrate with SAP.  (Or augment it with an orchestration interface that was built for SAP.)

Their top of page message about “automating spending processes and actively manage more spend for better control, greater value, and more savings” and “managing all sources of spend for increased control and business resilience” is pretty good, and one might think they are staying the course … still a decade behind the times in some ways (as Control Towers were so early 2010s), but staying the course. Unless, of course, you were paying attention to their most recent announcement pushing “SAP Business AI built into your procurement processes“. Even though they first announced an AI Co-pilot in 2018, it received pretty low fanfare, and was kept in the backroom, until this year, where it is now “super-charging” its AI Co-pilot with Gen-AI and other new capabilities!

While a bit behind the times (which makes sense for them as their enterprise customers don’t want to be suffering hit-and-miss innovation on the bleeding edge), everything was looking pretty good in our books until they started diving all in on the (Gen-)AI Co-pilot.

We’re especially saddened by the new, deep, focus on the (Gen)-AI Co-pilot because, and while this is as much on the SAP side as the Ariba side, they seemed to have been making some very good progress on the improvement and modernization of the direct side — catching up to the big specialists (namely Ivalua and Jaggaer) that were, through their DirectWorks and Pool4Tool acquisitions, respectively, working hard to build a better direct mousetrap and take SAP customers away).

Coupa

Well, you know our opinion here … the way things are going, this could be Coupa’s Third and Final Act. They replaced BSM with MMM, which they say stands for Make Margins Multiply, but what does that mean?

Even worse, they’ve apparently now gone all-in on AI, recently releasing 100+ AI powered innovations in their spend management platform and redoing their tagline to “optimizing your spend with the #1 AI total spend management platform“. Which is sad for us. It’s acquisition of Trade Extensions made it the #1 sourcing optimization platform and its acquisition of Llamasoft gave it the ability to optimize supply chain networks as well. It could literally optimize your spend across Souce-to-Pay and Supply Chain better than any other source to pay platform out there and yet it too has gone all in on AI, which does NOT optimize!

Ivalua

Ivalua, which, like Coupa, has been tracked by SI since the early days, was one of the platforms we felt was on the right track. Especially since it was one of the few platforms that was built up on one native, integrated, code base that allowed for true, integrated, end-to-end S2P processes that felt fragmented on other suites that built up their functionality by acquiring modular vendors and loosely integrating them.

At first glance, it seems like they are still on the right path. Off the top its “SIMPLIFY PROCUREMENT with a Unified Source-to-Pay platform” messaging is on course. Moving on to “complete transparency, seamless automation, and enhanced collaboration” elicits a hear, hear. “It will make you #LoveProcurement“. Doubtful in our books (unless you love it already because, if you love procurement, you love the process and not the tech). But you certainly won’t hate it with a good platform. “Make your spend matter with a complete, future-proof platform to manage all spend.” Not quite all spend, but certainly enough to make a big difference!

… and use “IVA to supercharge procurement with Gen-AI“. NOPE! It was a great start when they tried to be the first S2P vendor to create a true cross-platform search capability through a single search bar. Their early chat-bot interface which allowed for the execution of platform functions through simple statements, which could be learned and remembered, as they would be interpreted the exact same way every single time, was good for people who didn’t want to jump around through menus and modules and quickly access reports, documents, and simple system functions.

But when you introduce Gen-AI, you have unpredictability, the need to answer six or seven questions to explain, and get, what you hopefully want, and the opportunity for inappropriate (and if you hook it up to the web, even bad) data to be retrieved, which means bad decisions and bad results. In our view, they were so close, but now … we’re hoping they reverse course just a little bit.

Jaggaer

As we noted above, after the acquisition of Pool4Tool and BravoSolution in 2017, Jaggaer announced “ONE” in 2018, but under Accel KKR, they never achieved “ONE”, and, in fact, they didn’t even come close to true cross-platform data integration (level 1 on a 5 level hierarchy of integration) in our deep assessments (which included SolutionMap evaluations at the time), largely due to all the layoffs and operational cost reductions. It wasn’t until Cinven (who flipped them to Vista Equity earlier this year) acquired Jaggaer in 2019 that they started serious integration efforts (and, in the early 2020s, made very good progress).

Since then, they have continued to focus on:

1. “Harnessing the power of ONE intelligent S2P platform to turn procurement into a value-adding force with Jaggaer’s AI-powered, S2P solutions and supplier collaboration platform“, which is great.

2. “Unlocking the shared value in your procurement ecosystem to accelerate business outcomes, automate complexities, and manage spend with Jaggaer’s intelligent S2P and supplier collaboration platform“, which is greater.

3. “Accelerating your autonomous commerce journey to turn procurement into a value-adding force with Jaggaer’s AI-powered S2P solutions and supplier collaboration platform“, and there it is. Autonomous is okay when “autonomous” is just automating tactical tasks. But AI powered … especially when they are now going down the Gen-AI path, not good. Not good at all in our books. They have all the know how between old SciQuest (Indirect), Pool4Tool (Direct), and BravoSolution (Complex Services) to be one of the few suites that can handle any type of buy using best-in-class processes and capabilities. Continuing to bring that together, magnifying the opportunities, and continuing to introduce new capabilities and streamlined workflows and interfaces around that would not only be a huge differentiator, but one of the biggest in our book. Wasting talent on Gen-AI conversational interfaces which carry the risk of exacerbate as many complex events as they simplify, the exact opposite.  (As per our previous, grudging, admission, we believe Gen-AI has very few valid uses in Procurement, and believe that for most of those uses, Jaggaer already had better tech and approaches — and all that was needed was some streamlining and UX improvements.)

Edit: 2024-Nov-06: Jaggaer has reached out and indicated that while they believe in using Gen-AI wherever they think it has value, it is fully optional and they are more concerned with maintaining their focus on full platform integration and utilization of the right AI for automation where tactical processes can be automated.  Hopefully marketing can balance the messaging more going forward so people don’t make inferences to the contrary.

GEP

GEP used to be all about “SMART” Procurement. They named their suite, which was a complete re-write from scratch as a fine-tuned integrated suite, “SMART” back in 2013. They were playing a bit of catch-up, but it was a good, well oiled, integrated suite. Then they built NEXXE, so they could do supply chain, which, while not quite on the scale of a Big dedicated Supply Chain player (like Blue Yonder or Infor), given that they are also a full-service company, was more than good enough to support end-to-end S2P and Supply Chain for many of their G3000 clients.  (And if you knew who some of their clients were, you’d be amazed.  They support big names with very complex sourcing, procurement, and supply chain problems.)  By the end of the 2010s, the UX needed updating in both, but if you look at the Spend Matters Solution Map scores, it was more than enough to do the job. A few new advanced capabilities in a few areas and it was a great solution for their target market (G3000 who wanted end to end software and services across S2P and Supply Chain).

So where are they now? “GEP’s AI-First approach seamlessly integrates strategy, software and managed services, enabling enterprises to rapidly establish the infrastructure and capabilities necessary to build and run high-performance procurement and supply chain organizations.”

Why, why, why? First of all, in our experience, customers don’t buy GEP for AI-First, or even UX, they buy because they want the one-throat-to-choke solution-and-services model that works that GEP offers across source-to-pay and supply chain, which is something only SAP and Oracle can offer, and, more importantly, neither of them can offer it as a company that started as a S2P, and then Supply Chain, specialist (as SAP and Oracle both started as ERPs and also split focus across so many other areas — HR, CRM, etc.). Secondly, they want their their Procurement and Supply Chain managed, not run by a dumb bot who may or may not make random decisions on anything at any time. Thirdly they want predictable, repeatable results that they can bank on, as well as the ability to get to the root cause when something is screwed up. None of this says, or even implies, AI.  And definitely not Gen-AI!  Ugh.

Zycus

While much less visible in North America over the last few years, Zycus for a while was making a splash as the “affordable” solution that could be obtained in the six (and not seven) figures and do the majority of what most large mid-markets (LMM) and enterprises needed, especially in industries that didn’t require a lot of “direct”. It was a great solution for LMM multi-nationals on the rise to true global enterprises. And their messaging was straight to the point: the “Power of Procurement” through their Source-to-Pay Procurement Suite. It was clear what they did, what they offered, and why you wanted to use Zycus to go digital. Even the most novice of Procurement practitioners could understand it. Heck, they were one of the first to build a custom intake module (iRequest) for their entire platform a decade ago. (It should have been built in at the core, but not many suites would admit this oversight halfway through their journey and actively work to correct it.  Zycus deserves big props for this.)

Where are they now? “Make Procurement Intelligent: World’s first Generative AI powered S2P Platform that helps you achieve 10X speed and efficiency in procurement.” All-in on the Gen-AI hype train! (And given how many specialists launched on Gen-AI over the last couple of years, and how they are usually showing up after the party starts, following a best value approach, we will tell you that while they are one of the first, they are definitely NOT the world’s first.  However, in fairness, we will note that they were undeniably one of the first to investigate and deliver automated spend classification, and were so early in doing this they could have been the first full source-to-pay suite to have it, all depending on your definition of suite.)  Basically, more of our hopes and dreams that the big suites are resisting the Gen-AI hype are dashed.

Interlude

So where are we now? That’s six suites all in on AI, and, for the most part, Gen-AI, and, in our opinion, sailing the seas sans a sextant (at least with respect to their marketing direction)! (After all, despite the fact that it continues to perpetrate the Gen-AI hype, Gartner recently reported 85% failure rates in AI projects last year — and Bain is now reporting technology project failure rates of 88%, an all time tech failure high! This should be more than enough to turn away from Gen-AI, even without a discussion of all the problems Gen-AI comes with and all the risks Gen-AI entails. [Hallucinations, sleeper code, implanting false memories, etc. etc. etc.])

This is very sad in our view as these are six suites that grew and attained their status by attempting to, and then building, real solutions that solved real customer problems sufficiently enough to sign big customers, keep big customers, and grow big customer accounts. Since, with the possible exception of Ariba (that might have been added on by a SAP ERP customer), these aren’t ERP vendors with ERP lock in, you know they had to, and have to, be doing something right! Why risk that track record on unproven (and usually inappropriate) (Gen)-AI?

Now, as per our Coupa coverage, we hope we are dead wrong, that they all have a plan to continue building great solutions without Gen-AI (dominance), that they will continue to remain strong suites, and that we will be covering them for years to come (if they ever return our emails and messages and answer our demo requests).  We’ve invested almost two decades covering these solutions, and, more importantly, we have recommended and strongly recommended all of these solutions in the past and fully expect to keep doing so.  (Some clients need a suite, and we base our recommendations on current product capabilities, not how good the vendor is at marketing those capabilities.  That’s the advantage of having a deep understanding of technology!)

This just leaves us with:

Oracle

Specifically, their Fusion Cloud Procurement, which, to be honest, was the one suite we would almost never put on a shortlist for a company looking for a specialist S2P solution since they were usually less extensive and less feature-rich than the other suites that started as best-of-breed. (But definitely would for Oracle Shops that liked strong S2P integration with the ERP.)

However, when you go to their page, you see their messaging is all about asking if “your procurement suite can automate procure-to-pay, strategic sourcing and supplier management processes“? Then their messaging about how their “Fusion Cloud Procurement capabilities, built-in collaboration and analytic insights drive agility, manage risk and increase margins“. Moreover, “Oracle Fusion Cloud Procurement is an “integrated source-to-settle suite that automates business processes, enables strategic sourcing, improves supplier relationship management and simplifies buying resulting in lower risk, improved savings and greater profitability.” And, finally, it consists of modules for supplier management, sourcing, procurement contracts, purchasing, direct procurement, and procurement analytics.

Moreover, not a single mention of ANY AI on their main page. Just straight to the point messaging an average buyer and executive can understand. Moreover, searching for AI immediately takes you to Oracle AI for Fusion applications where you have a list of traditional AI for spend classification, predicted shipment and cycle times, dynamic discounting, supplier recommendations, demand sensing, anomaly detection, etc. No Gen-AI out of the box. If you dig deep, you find that you can have a Gen-AI based Procurement Tool with Natural Language Queries if you want it (and you are willing to custom build, configure, and train it), but they aren’t pushing it, you have to look for it, and ask for it. In other words, if you really want it, you can have it (because some customers will want it without researching it and they do give customers what they want), but they recognize you don’t need it for value, so they aren’t focussed on selling it (or even marketing it). (Just like they didn’t fall for The Cloud is a Crystal Ball hype, they ain’t falling for the Gen-AI Hype [yet].)

And that makes them the only suite that might not be sailing the seven seas sans a sextant (at least as far as their marketing direction is concerned). Now, we’re not saying they’re the best at using the sextant and charting a course, as they are typically behind most of the other suites in leading S2P functionality, but the simple fact they know that getting to your destination requires staying the course says something, and, in our book, that now makes them definite short-list material. Plus, like SAP, most of their customers are big enterprises that don’t want leading (and definitely don’t want bleeding) edge and instead want tested tried and true solutions.  And that’s why they’re going to be around for their 50th anniversary in 2027 and, if they so desire, might even be around in 2077.

In other words, they might be the tortoise, but we know in the end, if it stays the course, it eventually wins the race. (And this is something we never thought we’d write about Oracle in the early days. After all, Davie left Oracle to start the Coupa Factory in 2005 because he didn’t think they’d ever get where was needed in a timely fashion. How times have changed!)

Markets evolve, suites evolve, and messaging evolves.  Maybe when the Gen-AI hype dies down, we’ll see clearer messaging and be able to see the routes the suites are charting.  Only time will tell.

* Gen-AI stands for Generative Artificial Intelligence but should stand for Generative Artificial Idiocy as none of the generic Gen-AI LLM tools are intelligent and, moreover, can’t even do basic reasoning. Only the “generative” part is accurate, as generative literally means “make stuff up” and that’s what this hallucinatory technology does all the time!  (And that’s why SI is so scared when vendors start trying to rapidly incorporate it into their products.  As per previous coverage, their aren’t many valid uses cases with high reliability.)

Now, in full disclosure, SI hasn’t reviewed any of these solutions, except for two discrete modules in Coupa (Sourcing Optimization and Supply Chain Solutions), in the last 2 years, but this is not for lack of trying. SI has reached out (multiple times) to all but two of these companies, and, despite being one of the first sites to cover some these companies in the past (and do so in the early days when no one else would), has either been declined or completely ignored. (All the suites seem to care about now is Gartner and sometimes Spend Matters.)

First Coverage of:

  • Ariba: one of the few vendors that would not talk to SI in the early days, first covered by the doctor on Spend Matters in a 2-part piece in 2018 on Sourcing Decision Optimization Part 1 and Part 2#
  • Coupa was first covered in 2006 on the first Procurement Independence day
  • Ivalua was first covered in 2010 in a two-parter on end-to-end sourcing and procurement (Part 1 and Part 2)
  • Jaggaer is rebranded SciQuest, which was another vendor that wouldn’t talk to SI in the early days, even though the majority of its acquisitions, including AECSoft, Upside Software, Spend Radar, CombineNet, Pool4Tool, and BravoSolution, all did; the doctor did advise on Jaggaer coverage on Spend Matters as Lead Solution Map Analyst, but did not cover them directly;  he would advise checking out Spend Matter’s coverage if you have access: (S2C 1, S2C 2, and
    S2C 3 as well as P2P 1, P2P 2, and P2P 3)
  • GEP was not covered on SI, even though it acquired Enporion which was, as GEP was not highly relevant for SI’s market (focussed on companies who wanted insight into DIY platforms); the doctor did work with Xavier Olivera, Pierre Mitchell, and Jason Busch to do a deep dive in 2019 (Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6, Part 7) which was the 6th most popular PRO article of the year! (Source)
  • Zycus, unfortunately, was not covered on SI as they never made our radar until the doctor started contributing to Spend Matters, where he advised on coverage, but did not do the vendor coverage (which included the 2018 Vendor Analysis, which we recommend: Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3)
  • Oracle, another of the original vendors that would not talk to SI, was never covered on SI, and while the doctor did consult on their platform capability during Solution Map capabilities, never contributed to a write-up (but would recommend anything Xavier Olivera or Jason Busch ever wrote about them, including Cloud Surprise, Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, and Update 1)

# Note that the Spend Matters site migration of June 2023, in addition to removing all articles pre-2013 and many more pre-2020, also dropped co-authors on many articles as well. Most of what the doctor wrote in the early days was always co-authored with Jason Busch who usually received lead credit (and, thus, was the author who survived the migration).