Category Archives: Technology

It’s Not AI (First,Led,Powered,etc.) or Autonomous. It is Solution with Augmented Intelligence!

By now you know our stance on Gen-AI (and how it should be relegated to the rubbish heap from which it came) because it’s not about “AI”, it’s about outcome. And outcome requires a real, predictable, usable solution that helps Human Intelligence (HI!) make the right decision. Such a solution is one that uses tried and true algorithms that support tried and true processes that provide a human with the insight needed to make the right decision at the time, every time a decision needs to be made.

This requires a solution that walks the human user through the process, step by step, and presents them with the information required to make a decision as to whether to progress to another step, what the next step is, and any conditions that need to be put on that next step. This requires a solution that automatically runs all of the typically relevant analysis, on all of the available data, and presents the insight, along with any typical decisions (as [a] default recommendation[s]) made on any similar situations that can be found in the organizational history.

Automation should only occur in situations the organization has defined as acceptable according to well defined, human reviewed, and verified rules. Not default vendor rules or unverified probabilities or unverified random computations from a random algorithm. A good solution is one that walks a user through the process, often allowing each step to be completed with a single choice or click. It’s not one that makes the choice for the user, which may or may not be the right one, but one that helps the user makes the right choice. It might seem like a subtle difference, but it is a very important one.

Even though an AI-powered autonomous solution might seem to make the right decision over 90% (or 95%) of the time, it doesn’t mean it actually is. If it looks right, it might be a good decision, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good decision for the organization at the time, or the best decision that can be made. Only human review, at the time, can make that decision. A good solution runs all the analysis it can, summarizes the results, and lets a human verify the data for any recommendation made by the system.

To better understand the the subtlety, consider a situation where the organization lets the system automatically re-auction all regularly purchased products and commodities for manufacturing or MRO where the price is typically constant over time using a lowest bidder takes all e-Auction that results in the auto-generation and auto e-Signature of a one year contract. Now, most of the time this is probably going to work okay, but imagine you let it run on full auto-pilot and in the e-Auction queue is your regular RAM contract that expired three days after a major RAM plant factory fire (that happens about once every decade if you trace back through the last forty years), and prices have just skyrocketed about 50%. Prices which would drop back down as soon as the plant comes back online in three months. Locking in a full year contract would result in excessive cost overruns on the items for almost nine months longer than necessary, instead of just three months or so. A human would know to buy the bare minimum on the spot market at overly inflated rates and wait until the market stabilized before running an e-Auction to lock in the next contract. But a system told to just re-auction and re-order at every contract expiration would do this that. It wouldn’t know that the current market rates are just temporary, why, and how to change course. This is just one example where over-automation and AI will lead to failure without Human Intervention.

A good system presents the user with the products/commodities that are typically automatically auctioned, the history of costs, the current market costs, the recommendation for auto-sourcing and term, the expected results, and whether the recommendation is for the auction to auto-award and contract or, when the auction is complete, pause and include a human in the loop to make a final decision. A well designed system minimizes the work and input required by a human, eliminating all the tactical data analysis and e-paperwork, making it easy to make the right strategic decision without a lot of effort. Technology isn’t about trying to replace human intelligence (which it can’t), but about eliminating unnecessary drudgery or computation (“thunking”) that humans are not good at (or don’t have the time for), so that humans can focus on strategic decisions and value add.

That’s why the right answer is always a solution with augmented intelligence. Not autonomous AI solutions.

The Complete AI in Procurement, Sourcing, and Supplier Management: No Gen-AI Needed Series Indexed

The Complete AI in X (No Gen-AI) Series, 2018/2019 and 2024!

CLASSIC (SM Content Hub)

AI In Procurement

AI in Procurement Today Part I
AI in Procurement Today Part II

AI in Procurement Tomorrow Part I
AI in Procurement Tomorrow Part II
AI in Procurement Tomorrow Part III

AI in Procurement The Day After Tomorrow

AI in Sourcing

AI in Sourcing Today

AI in Sourcing Tomorrow Part I
AI in Sourcing Tomorrow Part II

AI in Sourcing The Day After Tomorrow

AI in Supplier Discovery

AI in Supplier Discovery Today

AI in Supplier Discovery Tomorrow

AI in Supplier Discovery The Day After Tomorrow

AI in Supplier Management

AI in Supplier Management Today Part I
AI in Supplier Management Today Part II

AI in Supplier Management Tomorrow Part I
AI in Supplier Management Tomorrow Part II

AI in Supplier Management The Day After Tomorrow

AI in Optimization

AI In Sourcing Optimization Today

AI In Sourcing Optimization Tomorrow

AI In Sourcing Optimization The Day After Tomorrow Part I
AI In Sourcing Optimization The Day After Tomorrow Part II

CURRENT (Your SI!)

AI In Procurement

Advanced Procurement Yesterday: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Procurement Today: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Procurement Tomorrow: No Gen-AI Needed

AI in Sourcing

Advanced Sourcing Yesterday: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Sourcing Today: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Sourcing Tomorrow: No Gen-AI Needed

AI in Supplier Discovery

Advanced Supplier Discovery Yesterday: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Supplier Discovery Today: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Supplier Discovery Tomorrow: No Gen-AI Needed

AI in Supplier Management

Advanced Supplier Management Yesterday: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Supplier Management Today: No Gen-AI Needed

Advanced Supplier Management Tomorrow: No Gen-AI Needed

You Should Never Build Your Own ProcureTech Solution! Ever!

Integrate your own custom suite to suit your processes, maybe, but never build from scratch. (And we should not have to be talking about this again after just publishing on the subject two weeks ago, but too many conversations are indicating that we still need to shout this loud and clear!)

For some reason, this comes up every decade, usually after a hype cycle has peaked, marketers have switched from focussing on solutions to sound bites from a suite of providers who have released products that don’t meet customer needs, the implementation failure rate has edged back up to the 80%+ range, and customers have gotten absolutely positively fed up with the whole situation.

Customers, fed up with the valueless hype, marketing sound bites, high failure rate, and utter lack of solutions from the vendors targeting them on a daily basis, start to think that the right solution is to build their own.

Sourcing Innovation tackled this subject in depth back in 2015 when it wrote a 4-part series on why you should NOT build your own e-Sourcing solution, followed by an explanation of why you should not build your own Contract Management and e-Procurement platform. (links here)

That’s why we are both repeating and elaborating on last Friday’s Rant on why A Company Should Never Build It’s Own Enterprise Software Systems.

Not only do we have the situation where:

  • the company is not an expert in building software products
  • the company is not an expert in best practices across all of its processes
  • by the time a custom solution is developed, it’s out of date
  • it’s not about the product, it’s about the process you should be working toward and, most importantly,
  • it’s about the data that drives the process!

But we have the situation where, as highlighted in THE REVELATOR‘s article:

1. Developing your own is NOT being an early adopter! (Which is what many companies considering build-your-own think they are.)

Early adopter means someone who adopts leading edge technology from a third party, not someone trying to fast track their digitization effort with custom built tech. This is just high risk with little chance of reward for all the reasons mentioned in all of our prior articles.

2. They think Gen-AI will fix their data problem and allow them to develop their own!

If you’re read anything on Gen-AI on this blog you know that’s the last thing it will do. For Gen-AI to have any chance of working at all, it needs a huge amount of good, clean, data. Otherwise, it’s garbage in, hazardous waste out. No technology has ever needed such large amounts of near-perfect data to have even an abysmal chance of working, and the fact that the marketing madness has convince many CPOs that Gen-AI can fix a data problem is downright terrifying!

3. They obviously think that the initial quote will be close to the final cost.

No where are cost overruns more extreme than in custom development by a non-software organization that contracts a Big X with poor specifications that look easy, and that, due to lack of manpower, sends The C-Team (if you are lucky) because it’s just another instance of system X (when it’s not).

To be honest, in this situation, if the costs ends up being only 3X to get something usable (but still not what you wanted), given the high technology failure rates, that would be amazing.

We know it’s hard to find appropriate solutions given all the noise out there, and the overabundance of vendors that all look, sound, and go all in on useless Gen-AI the same, as it just takes one glance at the Mega Map to figure that out, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t vendors out there appropriate for you. Vendors that put solutions, not tech first, that built affordable tech that works (and didn’t take too much money from investors who then insisted on quadrupling the price), and that will work in an ecosystem with out vendors to solve your problems.

You just have to look hard. Real hard. Probably harder than you’ve ever had to look before. (Expect to eliminate 6 out of every vendors you look at for short list consideration and probably go through 20 to find 3.) But trust us, when you find the right vendor, it will be worth it. The solution will work, will configure to your liking, will be extremely usable for the problems your team faces every day, and will be one where the provider will grow with you for the decade to come.

Good things come to those who wait to find the right vendor. (Even if they have to crawl through multiple pig sties to do so.)

Advanced Supplier Management TOMORROW — No Gen-AI Needed!

Back in late 2018 and early 2019, before the GENizah Artificial Idiocy craze began, the doctor did a sequence of AI Series (totalling 22 articles) on Spend Matters on AI in X Today, Tomorrow, and The Day After Tomorrow for Procurement, Sourcing, Sourcing Optimization, Supplier Discovery, and Supplier Management. All of which was implemented, about to be implemented, capable of being implemented, and most definitely not doable with, Gen-AI.

To make it abundantly clear that you don’t need Gen-AI for any advanced back-office (fin)tech, and that, in fact, you should never even consider it for advanced tech in these categories (because it cannot reason, cannot guarantee consistency, and confidence on the quality of its outputs can’t even measured), we’re going to talk about all the advanced features enabled by Assisted and Augmented Intelligence that are (or soon will be) in development (now) and you will see in leading best of breed platforms over the next few years.

Unlike prior series, we’re identifying the sound, ML/AI technologies that are, or can, be used to implement the advanced capabilities that are currently emerging, and will soon be found, in Source to Pay technologies that are truly AI-enhanced. (Which, FYI, may not match one-to-one with what the doctor chronicled five years ago because, like time, tech marches on.)

Today we continue with AI-Enhanced Supplier Management that is in development “today” (and expected to be in development by now when the first series was penned five years ago) and will soon be a staple in best of breed platforms. (This article sort of corresponds with AI in Supplier Management The Day After Tomorrow that was published in May, 2019 on Spend Matters.)

TOMORROW

Supplier Future State Predictions

Supplier management platforms of today can integrate market intelligence with community intelligence, internal data, and external data sources and give you a great insight into a supplier’s current state from a holistic perspective.

Along each dimension, future states can be predicted based on trends. But single trends don’t tell the whole story. Now that we have decades of data on a huge number of companies available on the internet across financial, sustainability, workforce, production, and other dimensions which can be analyzed overtime and cross-correlated, we can do more, and know more.

Based on this correlated data, machine learning can be used to build functions by industry and company size that can predict future state with high confidence based upon the presence of a sufficient number of sufficiently accurate data points for a company in question. Now that these platforms can monitor enough internal, community, and market data and pull in a plethora of data feeds, they can accurately compute metrics with high confidence along a host of dimension, and this in turn allows them to compute the metrics that are needed to predict future state if the vendor’s platform has enough historical data on enough companies to define trends and define predictor functions using machine learning.

Not only can you enter a relationship based on a current risk profile, but on a likely future risk profile based on what the company could look like at the end of the desired contract term. If you want a five year relationship, maybe taking advantage of that great deal due to a temporary blip in supplier or market performance may not be a good idea if suppliers historically in this situation typically went into a downward spiral after accepting a big contract they ultimately weren’t prepared to deliver on.

Category Based Supplier Rebalancing

We could actually do this today, as a few vendors are now offering this capability, but it’s not yet part of supplier management platforms and the newly emergent offerings are often limited to a few categories today. But tomorrow’s platforms will continually analyze your categories holistically (along the most relevant dimensions, which could include cost, supply assurance, environmental friendliness, etc.) to determine if the supply mix you are currently using is the best one, let you know if there could be a better one, and suggest changes to orders (as long as it doesn’t jeopardize contracts where that jeopardy could come with a financial or legal penalty).

It’s just a matter of re-running an optimization model on, say, a monthly basis with updated data on price, supply assurance, and environmental friendliness (using the appropriate data for each, such as market quotes, current supplier risk, carbon per unit, etc), and comparing the optimal result to the current allocation plan. If it’s within tolerance, stay on track; if it’s slightly out of tolerance, notify a human to conduct and review a thorough analysis to see if something might need to change; if it’s way off of tolerance, recommend a change with the data that supports the change.

Supply Base Rebalancing

Once you have a platform that is continually reanalyzing categories and supplier-based assignment, you can start looking across the supply base and identify suppliers which are hardly used (and an overall drain on your company when you consider the costs of maintaining a relationship and even maintaining the supplier profile) and supplier that are potentially overused (and pose a risk to your business simply based on the level of supply [as even the biggest company can stumble, fall, and crash to the ground on a single unexpected event, such as the unexpected installation of a spreadsheet driven Master of Business Annihilation as CEO who has no clue what the business does or how to run it effectively and, thus, causes a major stumble, as summarized in Jason Premo’s article).

And, more importantly, identify new suppliers who have been performing great with slowly increasing product / service loads and should be awarded more of the business over older suppliers that are becoming less innovative and more risky to the operation at large. Now, this will just be from a supply perspective, and not a supply chain perspective (as these programs focus on suppliers and not logistics or warehousing or overall global supply issues), but this will be very valuable information for Sourcing and New Product Development who want to always find the best suppliers for a new product or service requirement.

Real-Time Order Rebalancing

Since tomorrow’s platforms will be able to recommend category rebalancing across suppliers, they will also be able to quickly recommend real-time order rebalancing strategies if a primary supplier is predicted to be late in a delivery (or a human indicates an ETA for a shipment has been delayed by 60 days). This is because they will be integrated with current contracts, e-procurement systems, and have a bevy of data on projected availability and real historical performance. Thus, it will be relatively simple to recommend the best alternatives by simply re-running the machine learning and optimization models with the problematic supplier taken out of the picture.

Carbon-Based Rebalancing

Similarly, with the rise of carbon-calculators and third-party public sources on average carbon production per plant, and even unit of a product, it will be relatively easy for these supplier management platforms to build up carbon profiles per supplier, the amount of that carbon the company is responsible for, how those profiles compare to other profiles, and what the primary reasons for the differentiation are.

The company can then focus on suppliers using, or moving to, more environmentally friendly production methods, optimize logistics networks, and proactive rebalancing of awards among supplier plants to make sure the plants producing a product are the ones closest to where the product will be shipped and consumed. It’s simply a carbon focussed model vs. a price focussed one.

SUMMARY

Now, we realize some of these descriptions are dense, but that’s because our primary goal is to demonstrate that one can use the more advanced ML technologies that already exist, harmonized with market and corporate data, to create even smarter Supplier Management applications than most people (and last generation suites) realize, without any need (or use) for Gen-AI. More importantly, the organization will be able to rely on these applications to reduce time, tactical data processing, spend, and risk while increasing overall organizational and supplier performance 100% of the time, as the platform will never take an action or make a recommendation that doesn’t conform to the parameters and restrictions placed upon it. It just requires smart vendors who hire very smart people who use their human intelligence (HI!) to full potential to create brilliant Supplier Management applications that buyers can rely on with confidence no matter what category or organization size, always knowing that the application will know when a human has to be involved, and why!

Dear Enterprise Software Vendor: Should You Fire Your PR and Marketing?

Note the Sourcing Innovation Editorial Disclaimers and note this is a very opinionated rant!  Your mileage will vary!  (And not about any firm in particular, as a few non-isolated incidents opened up a whole new line of questioning.)

In response to a post by eCornell (which is/was here), THE REVELATOR wrote this comment (which is/was here) which is repeated here in its entirety in case it gets deleted, since anytime we tried to have a serious conversation around sales, marketing, public relations, and/or Gen-AI with Big X firms and/or (mid-sized) consultancies and analyst firms, they have quickly deleted our comments, and sometimes their entire posts rather than enter into a real conversation on the subject (and now we have developed an implicit distrust any corporate account and keep copies of everything):

NOTE: The following post was inspired by a comment by Paul Rogers

Despite feeling like someone walking the hallowed halls of Cornell University wearing a “Yeah, Harvard University” t-shirt, sometimes you have to say things that need to be said – which is the purpose of sharing this article.

Ask ChatGPT the following two questions:

🤔 What is the role of the Public Relations professional?
🤔 What is the role of the Marketing professional?

Do you see any mention of end client or customer success as a priority? Whose best interests are PR and marketing professionals focused on? What does the answer to these questions tell you?

Corporate communication has always been about putting a positive spin on business and the brand. It reminds me of the 1986 Richard Gere movie Power – if not a great movie, it is certainly interesting and engaging. Denzel Washington’s role as public relations expert Arnold Billings is worth the price of admission alone.

Unfortunately, beyond the company they represent, are PR and marketing people doing more harm than good?

Thoughts?

To which the doctor responded (which is/was here)

Well, SI, which has repeatedly told companies in our space to fire their PR firms going back to 2008: Blogger Relations, firmly believes that PR firms are doing more harm than good because

  1. you are NOT selling enterprise software to consumers and
  2. it’s not “image”, it’s “solution”!

As for marketing, corporate marketing can be good if it exists to educate and explain, but when was the last time that happened on a regular basis in our space? Over a decade ago … now it’s all AI-this, orchestrate-that, and whatever the bullcr@p of the day is. It’s all buzz, no honey. All show, no substance. All confusion, no clarity. (It’s bad enough that Trump has brought back the Land of Confusion with his populist politics that have taken by storm the first world over, we don’t need it in our workplace!)

So, right now, I’d say at least 6/7, if not 9/10, marketers are doing more harm than good and should be fired with their PR brethren.

There are over 666 companies in our space, and way too many pandering any type of solution you can think of. While we need at least 3-5 in each industry group – market size – geo region – module focus you can think of for competition, we don’t need 30+. Most are not going to survive, especially when most of these don’t have solid solutions built from years of experience that solve real customer problems (as opposed to just offering some shiny new tech that looks good but doesn’t solve the majority of pain points in real organizations).

This means that companies need to focus less on marketing and selling and more on:

  • market research, especially listening to what the real pain points are of the customers they want to sell to (and they need to focus in on a customer group here, you can’t be everything to everyone in our space and any company that thinks it can is the first company you should walk away from)
  • solution (not product) development — not shiny new tech, tried-and-true tech that works
  • market education, explaining what they do, how they do it, and why it solves real pain points after building a solution that solves the pain points they identified in their research

Which means, especially if money is tight, they should forget the marketers and instead focus on hiring researchers and educators. People are getting tired of the 80%+ tech project failure rates. They’d welcome some real insight and real focus on real solutions. If only the market would wake up and realize this!