Category Archives: Talent

Dangerous Procurement Predictions Part III

As per our first two posts, if you read my predictions post, you know SI hates predictions posts. It fully despises them because the vast majority of these posts are pure optimistic fantasy and help no one. Why are the posts like this? Because no one wants to hear the sobering reality off of the bat in the new year and the influencers care more about clicks than actually helping you.

But the predictions are not only bad, they’re dangerous if you believe them. So we are continuing to lay bare the reality of the situation to make sure you understand that this year isn’t much different than last year, no miracles are coming, and only hard work and the application of your human intelligence are going to get you anywhere. Today we tackle the next three, and while we hope we’re getting close to the end of the series, we’re pretty sure there will be at least one more entry.

8. Global Trade Will Shift, Prioritizing Resilience Over Cost.

In the mid to long term some trade will shift to prioritize resilience, but most trade won’t. While defence procurements, critical mineral and material acquisitions for high-end electronics, and valuable commodities that can be traded like currency (such as gold, silver, platinum, diamonds, etc.) will be shifted for resilience, the reality is that, even with natural disasters, sanctions, trade wars, and actual wars, most companies aren’t going to make any changes to their supply chains (unless given absolutely no choice) because

  • finding new suppliers (in new countries) takes time and effort
  • qualifying new suppliers (in new countries) takes time and effort
  • identifying and contracting reliable carriers takes time and effort
  • building and securing new supply lines takes time and effort
  • etc.

and most companies are in constant fire-fighting mode, overworked, overstressed, and they just don’t have the time as long as the current supply chain, while strained, still works. Until their supply completely dries up, their primary production lines and revenue streams are threatened, and they have no other choice, they won’t change because they’ll keep telling themselves random natural disasters won’t impact them, the tariffs are only temporary, sanctions change with administrations, and wars eventually end.

9. Your employees will orchestrate outcomes.

Woody Woodpecker, take it away!

The level of talent needed to orchestrate outcomes is well beyond the average level of talent in an average (and even most above average) Procurement Department(s). There’s a reason that talent is a concern, a <href=”” target=_blank>top risk, and a top barrier for not just the last five years of studies and surveys, but at least the last ten. Talent has been scarce for a decade, and the situation is much worse since COVID. COVID saw many early retirements of the forced and chosen variety. Then the constant fears of recession saw more layoffs, starting with the highest paid (and most experienced) talent first. And you can be damn sure many of them are not coming back. We told you a year ago that talent is about to become scarce, and we’re sad to say we think we underestimated just how scarce talent is about to become.

And the reality is that only top talent can orchestrate outcomes. All the vast majority of talent can do is execute tasks one by one in a well-defined process. They can’t create new processes, and they certainly can’t define new outcome-centric processes on the fly. Especially when the ORCestration platforms they are given can’t even “orchestrate” a process to lead a mouse to the cheese it desperately wants.

10. New Year, New Me.

Who were you last year?

That’s right, the same person you are this year.

This BS lasts until all the bubbly you drank on New Year’s eve wears off, the rose coloured glasses go dim from the glare of doing the same damn thing as you stare at the same damn screen 12 hours a day, and you get overwhelmed with all the same tasks you were doing last year. Within two weeks at most, the new year, new me bullcr@p disappears with your last new years resolution and you’re just fighting to survive being overworked, understaffed, underfunded, and under-resourced, especially on the tech side (because the C-Suite wasted all the budget on a Big X Consultancy Gen-AI project that never even got to beta testing because the prototype phase never actually worked).

Most people won’t even make an effort to improve, which is the best one can hope for! (So if you have an employee who does, proactively give them a raise, any training they ask for, and keep them. Because, as per our response to the last false, and dangerous, prediction, talent is scarce and you should do whatever you can to keep whatever talent you have [instead of trying to replace it with fake AI that will never work fully autonomously].)

Dangerous Procurement Predictions Part II

As per our first post, if you read my predictions post, you know SI hates predictions posts. It fully despises them because the vast majority of these posts are pure optimistic fantasy and help no one. Why are the posts like this? Because no one wants to hear the sobering reality off of the bat in the new year and the influencers care more about clicks than actually helping you.

But the predictions are not only bad, they’re dangerous. And to make sure you don’t fall for them and make bad decision based on them, we’re going to tackle some of the most dangerous predictions, which include predictions that look innocuous at first glance (like the last prediction on how a big legacy suite will go out of business) but hide the dangerous consequences of what will actually happen if a big suite finds itself in big trouble. Today we tackle the next four, and you can be sure this won’t be the last post in our series. Feeds are still being flooded with prediction posts, and I’m done ignoring the insanity.

4. The jobs market will be tough for the first half of the year, but will start to pick up in Q3 and Q4.

The job market is tied to the economy, and everyone predicts the job market will rebound when the economy picks up. But here’s the thing. Even when the economy picks back up, the job market never does quite as well as the last time. And the economy isn’t going to magically improve half-way through the year. This is the exact same thing we’ve been told the last two years, and it hasn’t happened.

First off, most of the first world economies around the world are flat, borderline recession, or in recession. Secondly, the only thing propping the US economy up right now is AI, and the money circles keeping it afloat as all the AI, Hardware, and Software companies keep moving the same money around investing in each other to keep each other afloat. If the bubble bursts, the US is in trouble, and the economy will quickly flush itself down the toilet. And the job market will go with it.

Considering only the big tech giants who have been hoarding cash for the last few years are in good shape, and everyone else is trying to conserve cash to survive not only the current market but a potential recession, the last thing they are going to do is hire unless absolutely necessary to fill a critical role as a result of a departure. Remember, they’ve spent the last two years using AI as an excuse to lay people off and are always looking for the next excuse to lay people off, not hire them!

Jobs will continue to be super scarce, and only the best will have a chance to land one.

5. We’re in the early stages of a broader pushback (against unnecessary upgrades or technology investments).

A few companies smartening up and saying no to forced big provider upgrades, eight (8) figure consultancy projects, and big Gen-AI investments is not pushback. There have always been a few leaders who have broken away from the pack, did the math, and made the right decisions, but the pack is still charging ahead on Gen-AI. Every big software shop except IBM (who hired a CEO who can actually do math) has invested heavily in Gen-AI, which still loses four dollars for every dollar of revenue, despite any hopes of a real return in the near future and a 94% failure rate.

Let’s face reality. I warned this space about The Vendor In Black nineteen years ago and how he always Comes Back sixteen years ago, no one took heed then, and no one is taking heed now. The business model of the enterprise software space, which has not changed for the two decades I’ve been covering it, is to solve the problem created by the old sh!t by selling the customers the new sh!t that comes with new problems so they can sell even newer sh!t in three years to fix those (and so on). Same old story. Only the vendor names change.

6. We Won’t Buy Things; We’ll Orchestrate Ecosystems.

This prediction likely came straight from the A.S.S.H.O.L.E. and anyone who repeats it should be ashamed of themselves. There are no AI Employees. Claims to the contrary are false and anyone making those demeaning and degrading claims is simply dehumanizing you. And, as we have clearly explained, you definitely don’t want agentic buying because it will happily spend your money not only on stuff you don’t need but stuff that doesn’t exist and, if you’re super unlikely, stuff that is highly illegal. You need wood, it will buy up all the Minecraft wood because it’s cheap and call your problem solved. And that’s if you’re lucky. If you’re not, it will fulfill your resin need with an illegal purchase of hash (the drug) on the dark web (which is labelled resin so the poster can claim they never advertised an illegal drug). And so on.

Plus, as we have already noted, most of today’s “orchestration” platforms in Source-to-Pay are really ORCestration platforms and can barely connect a handful of major Source-to-Pay offerings. They’re nothing close to what is needed to orchestrate ecosystems.

7. Boards will Zero in on Supply Chain Security and Supplier Risk shifts from quarterly PowerPoints to continuous “signalops”.

Just like they won’t invest more in cybersecurity, they won’t invest more in supply chain security until they lose a shipment in the tens of millions. After all, they’ve got supply chain insurance, why should they care? Especially since their current security measures have been sufficient up until now.

But here’s the thing. When the economy goes down, jobs go down. And then two things happen. People get desperate and turn to crime. And criminals, when their investments in drugs, alcohol, gambling, prostitution, and other quasi-legal through illegal activities start losing money because unemployed people run out of money to spend on their vices, these criminals get desperate too — and high value theft becomes more attractive. A temporarily unguarded truck here. A container there. An entire warehouse. And so on.

If it’s critical raw materials they can move (like rare earths), in-demand finished electronics they can sell (like iPhones, where a single container will contain at least 20M worth), military equipment or weapon (component)s that are now in demand globally, they’ll take bigger and bigger chances, especially if there are weaknesses in security. It’s not just cyber attacks that are going to increase, it’s physical attacks, supply chains aren’t ready, and companies won’t even stop preparing them until they lose tens of millions, don’t recover it all through insurance, and risk losing their insurance entirely. No one likes the math of risk prevention because, when it works, you don’t see the return. Even though it’s so much cheaper than insurance! And that’s why, in the majority of organizations, nothing will change.

Primary ProcureTech Concern: Talent Acquisition/Upskilling

Despite the false promises to the contrary, AI will not replace people for critical tasks in the near future and talent will be required.

Why?

This should be no surprise since one of the biggest barriers to success is the talent gap and one of the largest risks is the loss of the critical talent the organization has. As a result, an organization worried about its future should be very concerned about its ability to identify, acquire, and retain top talent.

Impact Potential

The potential impact of being unable to attract and upskill top talent ranges from

  • inefficiency: when unskilled sub-par talent take longer to get work done and do it more poorly
  • inaccuracy: in analysis and resulting decisions along with process and tech selection
  • inability: to manage categories, design new products, mange contracts and commitments
  • inaccessibility: to key suppliers, tenders, markets, channels, etc. if there is no one that knows how to manage them, speak the language, follow the rules, etc.
  • incohesiveness: as a lack of leadership and/or competence causes teams to fall apart

In summary, a lack of capable Talent can cripple an organization!

Major Challenges/Risks

  • lack of skilled talent: in many STEM (related) areas, there is a lack of skilled talent in the market due to lack of graduates, and even a lack of an appropriate student talent pool (as the US is 19th in the OECD rankings for adaptive problem solving and 25th in the OECD ranking for numeracy overall. (See our recent post.) That’s the good news. In the 2022 PISA test, the US ranked 34th out of 81 countries. When it comes to advanced math levels in the student population, some tests put the percentage of US students at a mere 7% compared to 30% of students in Singapore. Even back office jobs which are now analytics focussed and data dependent require advanced numeracy and problem solving skills.
  • lack of experienced candidates: with every recession, market instability, purported technological advancement, etc., companies slash headcount to preserve cash and the first to go are the experienced talent; then, when they hire, they hire cheap inexperienced graduates — with no one left to train them appropriately
  • lack of leadership: leadership requires people who have been there, done that with leadership skills — the more been there, done that that are retired, and the less that are properly trained, the less there are

Final Words

In summary, there’s a lack of talent across the board and you’re competing with everyone else. A talent war is coming, and it’s not one any organization is guaranteed to win.

(Supplier) Diversity is Dead!

Editor’s Note: This is an extended version of a comment that was made in response to an inquiry by THE REVELATOR on LinkedIn about the progression of supplier diversity.

The simple fact of the matter is thus: diversity threatens fascists who want authoritarian dictatorships. This means that as long as far right wing agenda politicians keep getting elected in first world countries (which has been happening more than not over the last decade), not only is DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) not going anywhere, but it is going to be rolled back, and done so faster than most policies that came before in countries which equated diversity progress with measurable outcomes.

The sad reality of the situation is that as soon as the board/chief/president of an organization or governmental department concluded that you were not diverse if you did not have x% of whatever minority the board/chief/president thought you should have x% of by time y, and started equating diversity success with measurable outcomes, we went from a situation where “equal opportunity” was replaced with “minority designated role”. And instead of being a further step in the right direction, it was often a step backwards. Under equal opportunity, if two candidates were roughly equal for a role, the role is to go to the minority candidate. And that’s a good thing. However, under “minority designated role”, non-minorities are banned from consideration, and this is not a good thing if there are no qualified minority candidates available for the role. A senior role that should demand a full University degree (Bachelor’s or higher), a decade of experience, and one or more certifications may end up going to someone who just has a 2 year associates degree, only 3 years of work experience (barely relevant to the role), and no certifications as that is the most qualified person who applied.

What many firms fail to take into account when considering diversity mandates is the number of qualified candidates in the minority who are actually in the vicinity of, and who are then actually interested in, and willing to take on, the position. For example, if you were to demand that half of your coding team need to be women, good luck with that when only 25% of STEM graduates in North America are female. (So if you did get 50%, a lot of other companies wouldn’t get any female hires.) Or if you demand that 1/5th of your workforce be hispanic, to mirror the US population distribution, but it’s an in office job in a major city in an expensive neighbourhood where 95% of the local population is white, good luck with that. You might meet your quota, but you know that the vast majority are not going to be qualified for the role.

And DEI didn’t stop there at some organizations and institutions in North America. As soon as people figured out that a DEI program or a particular minority designation could be used to exclude people of certain religion(s) they didn’t like, it went from a tool of inclusion to a tool of subversive discrimination. (So much for equity and inclusion!) Then came the backlash; the labelling of anything even remotely related to DEI, equal opportunity, or humanity as woke; and a full on assault by the fascists and authoritarians.

More specifically, in countries where they have enough power in the government, the authoritarians are dismantling any and all programs they have control over, barring any third party organizations with such policies from doing business with their government, and doing whatever they can to overturn all DEI and Equal Opportunity legislation they can, as far back as they can.

Moreover, given that these far right wing parties are being well funded by donations from the tech bros who spend more time meddling in global politics than running their own ventures, there are not many options for progression of ANY diversity on the global stage.

2025 Is Just Another Year … But Is It All Doom and Gloom? Part 3 (The Talent Tussle)

It’s another year, unless you decide to make it otherwise. As per our last instalment, the first thing you can do is look behind the hype and find the right tech (and not the tech the vendors and analysts are trying to push upon you.) The next thing you can do is:

Identify Talent Outside the Norms

There’s not enough talent in Procurement as there is, so STOP LOOKING in Procurement. Unless you are going to be smart enough to bring back apprenticeships, and even then, that could be long term talent (especially if you are bringing in kids with no real world experience in what the company does, how to run a company, or even how to do basic buying).

Start looking in functions that understand the business need, and find the doers with good people skills, good planning skills, and good computing technology skills. Hire them and train them in Procurement. Working for a manufacturer buying mainly direct parts — recruit engineers as sourcing professionals. Working for a department store chain selling primarily CPG, hire a distributor rep who knows all the big brands, products, and logistic networks as procurement professionals. Looking to create better contracts, hire a lawyer with a STEM background as your contract manager. What to get vendor management right, hire former vendor account managers who worked for multiple big names that match your customer profile and train them on Procurement needs so they can find a balance that will NOT p!ss off your customers. It’s a lot easier to teach basic Procurement than engineering, advanced logistics modelling and management, law and risk management. Especially to reasonably skilled and intelligent engineers, Masters of Operations Management in logistics, lawyers, and economists specializing in econometrics (and risk management). I’ll tell you one thing, learning everything a Procurement Manager did buying a nine (9) figure category was way easier than designing one of the first Strategic Sourcing Decision Optimization solutions that hit the market (and the first with multi-line item support, as recognized by Gartner 25 years ago), and that’s with a PhD and degrees in mathematics and computer science. It’s not Procurement that’s hard, it’s the people and planning skills that are hard, and that comes from doing the hard STEM (-based) degrees and getting real world experience applying those degrees. And if you can find the engineer, lawyer, economist, etc. who’d rather work with people than machines, and offer them a bit more, those are golden hires that will quickly transform your operation once you teach them what Procurement does (as they are also seekers of efficiency and outcomes).

The reality is that Procurement skill is not buying skill, it’s relationship management skill; it’s strategic planning skill; it’s logistics management and supply assurance skills; it’s quality management; it’s risk identification, mitigation, and management; it’s everything but buying. You can automate an e-auction or a multi-round RFP to do buying, or outsource it to a GPO if you don’t even want to think about it at all. The value of Procurement is not just cutting costs and keeping them down, but it’s keeping the business running, and that requires, as they say, mad skillz, and those aren’t found in traditional Procurement departments staffed by the island of misfit toys, despite what some bloggers may claim.

And then, once you have that talent, remember that they need good solutions and that

There Are Affordable Solutions

If you think solutions still cost mid to high seven figures when all is said and done, I have news for you. It’s not the noughts (even though you may feel like it because budget requests always end in the nots and get you in knots), it’s the twenties. (And if you don’t start roaring, the 20th century showed us what awaits in the thirties.) And good cloud-native SaaS solutions cost two orders of magnitude less. Enterprise licenses for BoB modules that can do everything an average mid-sized plus business needs to do (and more) start in the five figures, with starter solutions for SMEs and smaller mid-sized businesses being cheap enough to put on a P-Card. We’ve already told you about Spendata for spend analysis, but there are solutions for every step of the cycle.

You have (pay-as-you-go) solutions like Market Dojo or Serex Procurement for sourcing. New players like Bedrock and Canopy for SXM (and if you just want survey powered SPM, check out Vendor Score IT). CLM, check out Curtis Fitch or an AnyData Solution. SME Procurement — get yourself a Blue Bean. Or, if you want a full Procurement Suite with proven performance at the mid-market and F500 levels, bundle up everything you need, pay a reasonable six figure fee, and off you go to a Vroozi or Eyvo. Can’t manage those categories? Go do an Airflip. Not enough service management, it’s trivio with Zivio. Vendor Data Nightmare. You don’t need a team of overpriced Big X consultants, you just need a Tealbook. Too many apps? Get a Focal Point. SaaS subscriptions out of control, lock them away in SaaSrooms. And so on. (More information on most of these can be found in the SI Vendor Archives. Also, while the dives are not nearly as deep, Mr. Meads does his best to catalog the mid-market providers on his Procurement Software.site. It may not capture the Mega Map, but trust when I say that’s a good thing!)

Moreover, these solutions don’t take months to implement and years to integrate. They take a flip of a software switch to activate, usually a few hours to days at most to configure, and the only delay is usually your IT department providing the integration details to the necessary systems or producing the data dumps for flat file upload (which will then have to be cleansed, enriched, and mapped because your data will be dirty.) Some of these (like true DIY analytics, vendor performance assessment, and e-Procurement enhanced with full internal catalog [cross-indexed with active contracts and agreed to pricing], punch-outs, GPOs, and third party marketplace support) will deliver an ROI the DAY you start using them.

So get them … and use them!