Category Archives: Technology

DEAR ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT SOFTWARE BUYER: THERE ARE NO FREE RFPs!

This originally published June 29 (2024) and is being reprinted due to how important it is to remember as you enter a new budgetary year and seek out new technology.

This shouldn’t have to be said (again), but apparently it does since Zip has relaunched the FREE RFP madness in Source-to-Pay (that began in 2006 when Procuri first aggressively launched the Sourcing, Supplier Management, Contract Management, and Spend Analysis RFPs) with an RFP that is intake heavy, orchestrate light, process deficient, and, like many RFPs before, completely misses some of the key points when going to market for a technology solution. (Especially since there isn’t a single FREE RFP template from a vendor that isn’t intrinsically weighted towards the vendor’s solution, as it’s always written from the viewpoint of what the vendor believes is important.)

the doctor has extensively written about RFPs and the RFP process here on SI in the past, but, at a high level, a good RFP specifies:

your current state,
it does NOT leave this out leaving the vendor to guess your technical and process maturity
what you need the solution to do
NOT just a list of feature/functions
what ecosystem you need the solution to work in
NOT just a list of protocols or APIs that must be supported
where the data will live
and, if in the solution, how you will access it (for free) for exports and off-(vendor-)site backups, do NOT leave this out
what support you need from the vendor
NOT just whether the vendor offers integration / implementation services and their hourly / project rate
any specific services you would like from the vendor
NOT a list of all services you might want to buy someday
what the precise scope of the RFP is if it is part of a larger project
NOT a blanket request for the vendor to “address what they can”
what regulations and laws you are subject to that the vendor must support
NOT just an extensive list of every standard and protocol you can think of
what languages and geographies and time zones you need supported
any additional requirements the vendor will need to adhere to based on the regulations you or the vendor would be subject to and additional requirements your organization puts in place
NOT endless forms of every question you can think of that might never be relevant
your goal state,
it does NOT leave the vendor to guess what you are looking for (note that “goal” defines what you want to achieve, it is up to the vendor to define how they will help you achieve it)
what (management) processes you use to work with vendors — and —
what collaboration tools you make available to vendors and what your expectations are of them

And it is only created after a current state assessment, goal state specification, and key use-case identification so that it is relatively clear on organization needs and vendors have no excuse to provide a poor response.

Furthermore, a good RFP does NOT contain:

requests for features/functions you don’t currently need (but you can ask for a roadmap)
specific requests for a certain type of AI/ML/Analytics/Optimization/etc. when you don’t even know what that tech actually does — let the vendor tell you, and then show you, how their tech solves their problem
(after all, there are almost NO valid uses for Gen-AI in S2P)
specific requests on the technology stack, when it doesn’t matter if they use Java or Ruby, host on AWS or Azure, etc.
requests for audits (tech, environmental, social welfare, etc.) when you haven’t selected the vendor for an award, pending a successful negotiation
requests for service professional resumes when you haven’t selected the vendor for an award that includes professional service, pending a successful negotiation
requests for financials, when you haven’t selected the vendor for an award pending a successful negotiation
(because these last three [3] will scare some vendors off and possibly prevent the best vendor for you from even acknowledging your RFP exists)

And, a good RFP, goes to the right providers! This means that you need to select providers with the right type of solution you need before you issue the RFP, and then only issue to providers that you know offer that type of solution. (You can use analyst reports here if you like to identify potential vendors, but remember these maps cannot be used for solution selection! You will then need to do some basic research to make sure the vendor appears to fit the criteria.)

And if there are a lot of potential providers, you may need to do a RFI — Request for Interest / Intent (to Bid) — where you specify at a high level what the RFP you intend to issue is for, and if you get a lot of positive responses, do an initial call with the providers to confirm not only interest but the solution offered is relevant to your organization. (After all, at the end of the day, as The Revelator is quick to point out, it’s as much about the people behind the technology as the technology itself if you expect to be served by the provider.)

And even if you don’t need to an RFI before the RFP, you should still reach out to the vendors you want to respond, let them know the RFP is coming, and let them know you’ve done your research, believe they are one of the top 5 vendors, and are looking forward to their response. (Otherwise, you might find you don’t get as many responses as you’d hope for as vendors prioritize RFPs that they believe they have a good shot at winning vs. random unexpected RFP requests from unknown companies.)

At the end of the day, if you don’t know:

what the main categories of S2P+ solutions are
what the typical capabilities of a solution type are, what’s below, average or above
who the vendors are
how to determine your current state of process maturity (and how that compares to the industry, market, and best-in-class) and what a solution could do for you
how to evaluate a vendor’s solution
how to evaluate a vendor overall
how to write a good RFP that balances core business, tech, and solution requirements to maximize your chances of finding a good vendor for you

and the reality is that you most likely don’t (as less than 10% of Procurement departments are world class, as per Hackett research going back to the 2000s where they also determined the typical journey for an organization to become best-in-class in Procurement was 8 years, and that’s the minimum requirement to write a world-class technology RFP), then you should engage help from an expert to help you craft that RFP, be it an independent consultant or firm that specializes in Procurement transformation.

It is also critically important that the firm you select to help you needs to be neutral (not aligned with one solution provider who refers implementations to them in return for potential customer referrals) and that the firm does not rely on analyst maps either!

If you want help, the doctor has relationships with leading, neutral, firms on both sides of the pond who can help you, and who he will work with to make sure the technology / solution component is precisely what you need to get the right responses from vendors. Simply contact the doctor (at) sourcinginnovation [dot] com if you would like help getting it right.

Simply put, getting help with your technology RFP is the best insurance money you can spend. When you considering that, all in, these solutions will cost seven (7) or eight (8) figures over just a few years, you should be willing to spend 5% to 10% of the initial contract value to make sure you get it right. (Especially when there isn’t a single Private Equity Firm that wouldn’t invest in a technology player without doing a six [6], if not seven [7] figure due diligence first … and sometimes the firm will do this and then walk away! At least in your case, when you work with someone who can identify multiple potential vendors, you’re certain to find one at the end of the day.)

One Supply Chain Misconception That Should Be Cleared Up Now

This originally posted May 14 (2024). It’s being reposted because this definitely needs to be cleared up before the new year (due to the constant proliferation of AI, which is, when all is said and done, just another technology).

Not that long ago, Inbound Logistics ran a similarly titled article that quoted a large number of CXOs that made some really good observations on common misconceptions that included, and are not necessarily limited to (and you should check out the article in full as a number of the respondents made some very good points on the observations):

The misconceptions included statements that supply chains should:

reduce cost and/or track the most important metric of cost savings
accept negotiations as a zero-sum game
model supply chains as linear (progression from raw materials to finished goods)
… and made up of planning, buying, transportation, and warehousing silos
… and each step is independent of the one that proceeds and follows
accept they will continue to be male dominated
become more resilient by shifting production out of countries to friendly countries
expect major delays in transportation
… even though traditional networks are the best, even for last-mile delivery
accept truck driver shortage as a systemic issue
accept the blame when anything in them goes wrong
only involve supply chain experts
run on complex / resource intensive processes
… and only be optimal in big companies
… which can be optimized one aspect at a time
press pause on innovation or redesign or growth in a down market
be unique to a company and pose unique challenges only to that company
not be sustainable as that is still cost-prohibitive
see disruption as an aberration
return to (the new) normal
use technology to fix everything
digitalize as people will become less important with increasing automation and AI in the supply chain

And these are all very good points, as these are all common misconceptions that the doctor hears too much (and if you go through enough of the Sourcing Innovation archives, it should become clear as to why), but not the biggest, although the last one gets pretty close.

THE BIGGEST SUPPLY CHAIN MISCONCEPTION

We Can Use Technology to Do That!

the doctor DOES NOT care what “THAT” is, you cannot use technology to do “THAT” 100% of the time in a completely automated way. Never, ever, ever. This is regardless of what the technology is. No technology is perfect and every technology invented to date is governed by a set of parameters that define a state it can operate effectively in. When that state is invalidated, because one or more assumptions or requirements cannot be met, it fails. And a HUMAN has to take over.

Even though really advanced EDI/XML/e-Doc/PDF invoice processing can automate processing of the more-or-less 85% of invoices that come in complete and error free, and automate the completion and correction of the next 10% to 13%, the last 2% to 5% will have to be human corrected (and sometimes even human negotiated) with the supplier. And this is technology we’ve been working on for over three decades! So you can just imagine the typical automation rates you can expect from newer technology that hasn’t had as much development. Especially when you consider the next biggest misconception.

Enterprises have a Data Problem. And they will until they accept they need to do E-MDM, and it will cost them!

This originally published on April (29) 2024. It is being reposted because MDM is becoming more essential by the day, especially since AI doesn’t work without good, clean, data.

insideBIGDATA recently published an article on The Impact of Data Analytics Integration Mismatch on Business Technology Advancements which did a rather good job on highlighting all of the problems with bad integrations (which happen every day [and just result in you contributing to the half a TRILLION dollars that will be wasted on SaaS Spend this year and the one TRILLION that will be wasted on IT Services]), and an okay job of advising you how to prevent them. But the problem is much larger than the article lets on, and we need to discuss that.

But first, let’s summarize the major impacts outlined in the article (which you should click to and read before continuing on in this article):

Higher Operational Expenses
Poor Business Outcomes
Delayed Decision Making
Competitive Disadvantages
Missed Business Opportunities

And then add the following critical impacts (which is not a complete list by any stretch of the imagination) when your supplier, product, and supply chain data isn’t up to snuff:

Fines for failing to comply with filings and appropriate trade restrictions
Product seizures when products violate certain regulations (like ROHS, WEEE, etc.)
Lost Funds and Liabilities when incomplete/compromised data results in payments to the wrong/fraudulent entities
Massive disruption risks when you don’t get notifications of major supply chain incidents when the right locations and suppliers are not being monitored (multiple tiers down in your supply chain)
Massive lawsuits when data isn’t properly encrypted and secured and personal data gets compromised in a cyberattack

You need good data. You need secure data. You need actionable data. And you won’t have any of that without the right integration.

The article says to ensure good integration you should:

mitigate low-quality data before integration (since cleansing and enrichment might not even be possible)
adopt uniformity and standardized data formats and structures across systems
phase out outdated technology

which is all fine and dandy, but misses the core of the problem:

Data is bad (often very, very bad), because the organizations don’t have an enterprise data management strategy. That’s the first step. Furthermore this E-MDM strategy needs to define:

the master schema with all of the core data objects (records) that need to be shared organizational wide
the common data format (for ids, names, keys, etc.) (that every system will need to map to)
the master data encoding standard

With a properly defined schema, there is less of a need to adopt uniformity across data formats and structures across the enterprise systems (which will not always be possible if an organization needs to maintain outdated technology either because a former manager entered into a 10 year agreement just to be rid of the problem or it would be too expensive to migrate to another system at the present time) or to phase out outdated technology (which, if it’s the ERP or AP, will likely not be possible) since the organization just needs to ensure that all data exchanges are in the common data format and use the master data encoding standard.

Moreover, once you have the E-MDM strategy, it’s easy to flush out the HR-MDM, Supplier/SupplyChain-MDM, and Finance-MDM strategies and get them right.

As THE PROPHET has said, data will be your best friend in procurement and supply chain in 2024 if you give it a chance.

Or, you can cover your eyes and ears and sing the same old tune that you’ve been singing since your organization acquired its first computer and built it’s first “database”:

Well …
I have a little data
I store it on my drive
And when it’s old and flawed
The data I’ll archive

Oh, data, data, data
I store it on my drive
And when it’s old and flawed
The data I’ll archive

It has nonstandard fields
The records short and lank
When I try to read it
The blocks all come back blank

I have a little data
I store it on my drive
And when it’s old and flawed
The data I’ll archive

My data is so ancient
Drive sectors start to rot
I try to read my data
The effort comes to naught

Oh, data, data, data
I store it on my drive
And when it’s old and flawed
The data I’ll archive

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.