I thought already made this rant in my myth busting of 2025, sorry, 2015 procurement trends, Part 3, but after reading THE PROPHET‘S grand vision based on what can only be a fanatical belief that “AI” systems will magically become intelligent at some point in the near future, despite the fact that the majority of these systems are based on the dumbest technology ever created and cannot possibly become intelligent as they can’t even reason, it seems I have to make it again. The point is, as long as anyone believes that technology will solve the talent problem, we have a problem. And if someone thinks it will make the situation better when it’s only going to make the situation so much worse … ESPECIALLY IN PROCUREMENT, we have to start shouting from the rooftops!

First of all, he quoted an “All-In” Podcast — which apparently is a favourite among the AI zealots because it claimed that “the speed with which we are about to automate jobs through AI will result in a return to socialistic government policies because so many will be out of work — as his backing, even though, just like automated transaction classification and analysis (when “AI” was first introduced into our space in the early 2000s) didn’t eliminate analysts, commodity buyers, and AP clerks, this iteration of the technology won’t eliminate those jobs either! It will make them more productive, to the point that one AP clerk, accountant, data analyst, report writer, or any other person who spends 90% of their time doing repetitive tasks that are capable of being 90% automated can do the work of 10 of these individuals. So yes, if a department is oversized, some people who only, and can only, do these repetitive tasks will be put out of work, but not all of them. First of all, many of these systems can only do these well defined tasks when they can be performed the same way every single time with little to no variance. Humans will always need to process the exceptions. This is especially true when an error could result in massive loss (approving a request from an impersonating entity to change the bank account correlated with a supplier to one that belongs to the fraudster, executing a contract for a desperately needed good or material at an unaffordable price, hiring the wrong person due to algorithmic bias and getting hit with a massive lawsuit, etc. — and yes, these AI systems are MASSIVELY biased based on the data sets they are trained on. Why? They are not based on pure automated-reasoning systems based on pure, unbiased, logic. They are based on probabilistic correlations in input data, all of which is, sadly, at least mildly biased to the views of the writer who wrote the materials.)

More importantly, since AI actually sands for “Artificial Idiocy”, especially in the case of Gen-AI which can’t even do basic reasoning (but fools many of you because this new generation of neural network technology can process and train on an order of magnitude more data than previous generations of deep neural network technology and build responses from partial responses that are highly correlated to partial inputs compared to previous generations that could only return fully canned responses to full inputs), it can’t be counted on to make strategic decisions, and shouldn’t most important decisions in business be made strategically???

The reality is that all jobs in a modern business (and especially white-collar jobs) should be centered on strategic decision making and collaboration vs. tactical data processing. Even the most simple job. Take the lowly AP clerk. That’s seen as tactical invoice processing and a role that should be 100% automated. Neither should be true. First of all, no machine can catch all potential issues, or fix all the issues it detects. There will always be exceptions that humans will have to address, with real Human Intelligence (HI!). Secondly, while these clerks should be following rules, they should also be analyzing the rules, especially around payment terms, payment options, investment opportunities vs. early payments, etc. Cash is royalty in most organizations, and organizations need to manage their cash strategically on a daily basis, not just in quarterly or annual planning. Expenses are not static over time, revenue is not 100% reliable, interest rates change regularly, tariffs can come and go on the whim of a single demented individual in most countries, and regular analysis of payment terms, early payment (discount) offerings, investments, and cashflow needs to be done. Moreover, while we wholeheartedly agree that a clerk should not make the decision, you can’t expect the head accountant to have the time to do, and review, all the analysis that should be done while also being responsible for all financial planning and all financial reporting, but if her staff does all of this and brings their analysis to her on a weekly basis, the right decisions can be made at the right time and the organization can evolve with the market. The last thing an organization should be doing is paying suppliers Net 15 when only Net 30 or Net 45 is required and it’s the time of year when revenue is less than expenses, or paying suppliers Net 45 or Net 60 when the organization is cash rich and suppliers are struggling (and forced to take loans, which increases their overall costs, and the overall costs they pass along to the organization).

In other words, we should only see massive layoffs of people who have no strategic skills and shouldn’t be in white collar jobs to begin with. (And maybe this is the solution to the lack of trades workers who are desperately needed across North America. When they are no longer able to fake their aptitude for a white collar job they aren’t suited for, they’ll have to shift, especially in the USA where socialism gets further and further from the agenda every year. Those Billionaires aren’t pouring Millions into Political Campaigns via SuperPACs because they want socialism!)

So while half of current white-collar jobs may be eliminated, it won’t eliminate the other half of white-collar jobs, even though it will shift where the white collar jobs are and what they are. Even though department sizes may decrease 75% in the new AI Agent-based organization, it will create almost half as many jobs as it eliminates. We’ve been told for 60 years (and yes, you read that right, SIXTY years) that a super generic AI would come along and solve all our woes, and for 60 years it hasn’t happened. (And we are no closer now than we were then, despite claims to the contrary.) However, as technology has progressed, specific technologies focussed on particular applications have become better and better and many individual task workflows can be mostly automated with specific RPA, ML, or “AI” technologies. Each of these specific technologies needs to be individually built/trained, installed, configured, maintained, and improved over time as the process needs to evolve with business and marketplace realities. This requires appropriately trained and experienced people. So, while the jobs in the business back-office will decrease, jobs in specialist “AI” tech shops making specific applications will increase. (And no, the majority of these applications, once created, won’t auto-install, auto-configure, auto-retrain, auto-adapt, etc. etc. etc.)

Even though Google might suggest that we will soon have “Agents” that will “extend the capabilities of language models by leveraging tools to access real-time information, suggest real-world actions, and plan and execute complex tasks autonomously” and the mass layoff will soon happen, it won’t. You see, very smart humans who are expert in both technology AND the task they want to replace a human with are needed to design, build, test, refine, and make these tools real-world ready. Guess what? These smart humans are few and far between (especially since the rate at which we are getting progressively dumber in western societies is accelerating year after year ever since the introduction of social media, and Twitter in particular). Most white collar office worker process experts are not deep techies and most deep techies have very little understanding of how real world tasks are actually done, and you need someone who is deep in BOTH realms to appropriately design and lead the building of such tools. The reality is that there just aren’t enough of those resources, which brings us to why TALENT IS ABOUT TO BECOME SCARCER … ESPECIALLY IN PROCUREMENT.

You see, the same people who are needed to lead the construction of this next generation of systems are the same people with the skills you need to effectively select, implement, integrate, and manage these new systems, and the team who will use them, at a super-human level, which is necessary if you want to reduce your tactical workforce by a factor of 2, 3, 5, or even 10. Moreover, this also the talent that the new niche consultancies need in order to deliver the same value of the big shops at a much more affordable price tag.

So while the “AI Agents”, once deployed, will allow the average tech-adept employees who are responsible for a set of tactical tasks to be way more efficient, they won’t be sufficient to lead the transition and manage the “AI Agent” technology going forward. And they will also be in short supply because these are the same resources that will be needed by the AI Agent builders as testers and, more importantly, the SaaS-backed consultancies delivering projects using this technology. So while one may think this technology will enable everyone to be productive, they really won’t.

In other words, the introduction of “Agent” technologies is just going to accelerate the war for talent, and you’re going to become even more desperate for it as time goes on (given that you haven’t invested in talent in decades). Very, very desperate!

However, at this point we should note that THE PROPHET gets one thing right — if you’re going to invest in a ridiculously expensive college or university education (that rarely teaches true critical thinking anymore, as they have become more focused on maximizing enrolment to maximize dollars and allow class sizes as large as 300, 500 or more as long as they all fit in the auditorium), focus on STEM, and, in particular, on degrees that focus on applied aspects and will allow you to build systems (software, physical, hybrid) or their components (chemistry, material science, etc.). “Agents”, even though they aren’t going to work nearly was well as advertised, are going to either drive jobs upstream to strategic jobs that make extensive use of technology (requiring a strong STEM education in addition to an understanding of what the business function you are in is doing) or downstream to traditional trades (as machines can’t, and won’t, be able to generically build things, serve us, etc. for quite a while; any robotics that does work is orders of magnitude too expensive for the average business, and totally out of reach of the average person).

It’s also why we need to note that THE PROPHET gets another thing right — you need formal apprenticeship programs as you need to start nurturing your own talent, as it will soon be so scarce you probably won’t be able to hire top talent anymore at what you can afford to pay as they will all be earning top salaries at “Agent” development tech shops or “Agent” enhanced services shops.

But sadly, this is the last thing he gets right and his third suggestion telling you to “go online and learn how AI and agents work” is totally off the mark if you want to become more than just a consumer of such technology. To truly understand how this technology works, so you can understand where and when it won’t work (and why), you need a solid understanding of not just the algorithms it is based on, but the underlying mathematics. You need a solid STEM education to truly learn why what you are doing works, or doesn’t. Furthermore, English will never be the language of real coding. COBOL was abandoned for a reason — it was too wordy for real coders, and the reality is that English is too imprecise to ever be a formal programming language!

And any claims to the contrary are a considerable collection of cow cr@p!

So, needless to say, the doctor was disgusted at this thinly disguised advertorial by, and for, Amazon Business, which said technology, i.e. its platform, would solve your talent problem.

Not even close!

According to the advertorial, which appeared, appallingly, in USA Today:

While some churn may be inevitable, organizations can take steps to ensure their procurement teams are satisfied. One major step is ensuring they have the technology they need to do their jobs effectively.

Which is important, but not a major step.

If you ask people what they want in a job, which Gallup did in a survey to 13,085 US employees in 2022, it was:

1. A significant increase in income or benefits (64%)
2. Greater work-life balance and better personal wellbeing (61%)
3. The ability to do what they do best (58%)
4. Greater stability and job security (53%)
5. Vaccination policies that align with my beliefs (43%)
6. The organization is diverse and inclusive of all types of people (42%)

the doctor would bet with certainty that not a single respondent said “better technology” in their top five wants. As he repeatedly points out, which he did yet again in why do successful solution providers ruin everything by becoming tech companies?, no one wants tech or software … no one. They just want whatever makes their job easier, and that ain’t always fancy new tech.

At best, it’s a minor step that can enhance the ability to do what they do best.

Then it quotes their VP who says that since 74% of leaders seeing digitization as­­ key to better operations, the interpretation must be it’s clear we need seamless, consumer-like experiences in business procurement because this is what we are used to.

No! NO! NO! Joël Collin-Demers recently penned a great post on why we need to stop chasing an “Amazon-like” buying experience for requesters in your business! In short, in business, it’s inefficient, ineffective, and downright unpleasant. As Joël says, it’s the paradox of choice.

B2B is not the same as B2C, it’s never been, and never should be. So assuming that B2C is the solution is just plain wrong. B2B needs different solutions customized for the needs of bulk buyers.

The really depressing part about the article is they quote a lot of studies by reputable organizations with really concerning findings about just how bad the talent problem is and give a lot of good advice on what kinds of technology a Procurement organization should have in place. It’s too bad they chose to wrap it in a layer of cow cr@p and sully what could have been a good article on why a company should have a Procurement solution run by good talent (two different problems, two different arguments). They could have written the most credible piece USA Today ever published on the subject, but instead decided to pen some self-service BS rubbish with bad arguments and known wrong conclusions.

The only good thing the doctor can say about it is at least they didn’t mention the Gen-AI bullcr@p when they talked about the use of AI in procurement and got that part right at least!

Here’s the thing, if you have a talent problem, it usually comes down to one of two reasons:

• you haven’t been able to / can’t hire enough talent
• the talent you have is leaving

If you can’t hire enough talent, that’s usually because you can’t attract enough talent, and that’s usually because you aren’t hitting the top 6 points in the gallup poll referenced above. You need to step back and

• evaluate your standard offer (pay and benefits) against the local & global industry norms
• analyze your work life balance options
• assess the freedom and control you give employees to do their job
• gauge the job security you offer
• minimize your (lack of) vaccination policy (which, if it exists, should match the jurisdiction in which your employee resides — i.e. you comply with legal requirements, and that’s it — the choice should be theirs)
• ask yourself if you truly are an inclusive organization (which, FYI, does not mean DEI — see THE PROPHET‘s many rants on why this is not inclusivity as, simply put, opportunity does not imply outcome and DEI only measures outcome, which simply means it is being used in some countries as a new form of legal discrimination)

And if you can’t keep enough talent, you have to consider the top reasons people quit (as captured in a 2021 Pew Research Center survey):

• low pay, see #1 reason for taking a new job
• no opportunities for advancement
• no respect
• child care issues, see #2 reason for taking a new job
• not enough work hour flexibility, see #2 reason for taking a new job
• poor benefits, see #1 reason for taking a new job
• wanted to relocate, see #3 reason for taking a new job
• too many hours, see #2 reason for taking a new job
• too few hours, see #4 reason for taking a new job
• COVID-19 vaccine required, see #5 reason for taking a new job

Now, do you see “poor technology” anywhere on that list? If you do, get a new prescription and review the lists again. You don’t. That’s because, only a small fraction of people who leave a job will quote technology as one of the reasons (and the doctor would guarantee 99/100 it’s not the primary reason), and it’s probably less than the 14% quoted in the article. If you actually dig up the quote Lakeside Software research study, you see it canvassed 600 executives, IT leaders, and employees on the state of workplace technology and their digital experience. Not only is that a small sample group compared to the Gallup and Pew studies, but that’s not a homogenous sample group of employees (who were only 1/3 of the participants) — as executives and leaders (who probably don’t even have to use a computer) have entirely different reasons for taking and leaving jobs than the workforce! And even if the statistic was that high, you should be a heck of a lot more worried about why the other 6 employees are leaving than the 1 who decides he doesn’t like the tech he’s being forced to use, because you have much bigger problems than not having the absolute best tech!

Anyway, if you want more insights into Talent Recruitment, Retention, and Revolutionizing, dig into the SI archives.