Category Archives: Technology

The Real Value of the Sourcing Innovation Mega Map (2026 Ed)

1) It shows you how expansive the space is and why you need proper Assisted Solution Selection:
[Successful Vendor Selection: The Series]

2) It shows you how unstable the space is:
a) Fifty-Four (54) companies are gone.
b) Ten-Plus (10+) have been acquired and/or renamed …
… and could be discontinued / go out of business at any time!
c) for some functions, there are too many options!

a+b) While a disappearance rate of roughly 6% a year is only about 20% higher than normal, it’s just the tip of the iceberg! Right now, the RCD (relative corporate debt) of a majority of vendors is too high and we’re on the cusp of a purge unseen in two decades (that most of you won’t remember). I am still predicting up to 15% disappearance for the next 18 to 24 months between

* mergers/targeted acquisitions so both firms can remain on the cusp of viability
* fire-sale acquisitions to pick up talent and customers
* outright bankruptcies from vendors who aren’t getting funding

because the market is still tight, the software project failure rate is at an all time high (88%, 94% for Gen-AI), and your C-Suite (who got burned last time) is still afraid to give you budget.

Post Edit: Happy to say I’m not alone. See THE PROPHET‘s predictions for the FinTech investment market for 2026:

c) even when you segment by spend-size (not market size), culture (not geography), and industry, you still can’t support more than a few dozen players. In some cases we have 100!

3) It proves that, statistically, there are quite a few vendors that are not good.

[How to Select a Vendor NOT likely to screw you over; Part of
The MOST important clause in your (Procure)Tech (SaaS) Contract Series]

I’m going to remind you again that some estimates put the number of psychopaths in professional positions in NA at 5%, 3 of the 4 top jobs they seek are Salesperson, Lawyer, and CEO … and they are all attracted to the industries with the most money. Right now, that’s FinTech (subsumes ProcureTech).

As many as 1/20 sales people/CEOs don’t care if you get value or not, as long as they get the deal. Especially when the firm took too much money and they have to hit unrealistic sales targets to keep their jobs!

For those of you who believe all founders and all sales people honestly want to deliver value, as a former developer/architect/CTO, I will tell you this: bullsh!t!

Some founders see their peers doing startups and getting rich in 5 years and just want the same. They’re building to sell, not to build long term customer value.

But sales people can be much worse! I have had the displeasure on more than one occasion to work for companies in tech positions where, even after the sales person was expressly told the product didn’t do X, couldn’t do X for Y months/years, and it wasn’t on the roadmap, still told the customer X was available today and they’d have it on initial implementation if they signed the deal now. (These are usually the same salespeople that never seem to stay anywhere too long …)

And here’s our updated Cascading Mega-Map 2026 Edition!

STOP PAYING PROCURETECH/FINTECH ADVISORIES A DOLLAR JUST TO LOSE THREE DOLLARS!

Last week, in our post where we asked if ProcureTech Generated Billions While Practitioners Lost Trillions, we noted three things:

  1. Approximately 1.8 Trillion Dollars (more than the annual GDP of 92% of the countries on Earth) will be wasted this year on Tech-Related Spending
  2. Approximately 600 Billion Dollars will be spent with the big consultancies and analyst firms who do Financial (Technology) and Procurement (Technology) consulting and advisory
  3. That’s three dollars lost for every dollar spent on big consultancy and advisory firms

So how do you stem the bleeding? Especially if you can’t STOP spending mooney on tech advisory because you can’t stop spending money on technology because you can’t survive in today’s digital world without it?

You STOP forking over (high) six and seven figures without a guaranteed return! In other words, unless they save you some coin, then your money they will not purloin!

More specifically, if they are promising outcomes, then (the majority of) their compensation should be 100% dependent on outcomes. If you don’t make bank, then their compensation will tank.

To be even more precise, don’t buy:

  1. any technology platforms where the majority of compensation is tied to successful sourcing events, transactions, etc.
  2. any GPO services unless it’s 100% outcome oriented
  3. any functional outsourcing unless the majority of compensation is tied to ROI

Now, the technology providers and consultancies will push back, steadfastly claiming that their technology and services are worth way more than they are charging, but here’s how you counter:

  1. you will pay a base annual fee for the platform that will cover 150% of their base hosting costs, so they won’t lose, and then a percentage of transactions, identified savings through sourcing events, contract value, etc. where the percentage is calculated such that if you save 100% of their promised savings, they will make 50% more than what you would pay on a fixed cost after negotiation — if they are so confident in their claims, this should be a no-brainer
  2. you will pay a fixed amount on each transaction, calculated based upon the expected savings before you sign the contract, and if they can deliver the savings, you will definitely be using them regularly — and, as with the Tech Provider, you will calculate this so that they win bigger than if you pay them a fixed cost IF they generate a return for you
  3. you will pay a fixed rate per hour that is enough to cover the assigned personnel cost (their salary plus 30% overhead), and any compensation beyond that will be dependent on the department delivering an ROI beyond a certain amount (which is the amount required to cover the basic fee you are paying them); and again, you’ll fix the compensation such that if they deliver 100% or more of what they promise, they will win big too

Now, you’re probably saying the doctor is daft by telling you to offer them 50% more than what you’d have to pay on a fixed cost basis if they deliver, but here’s the reality, without incentive, THEY WILL NOT DELIVER!

There is an 88% technology failure rate across the board, and 94% failure rate if it’s a (Gen-) AI project. The reality is, as we pointed out in our series on how, even if they have good intentions in the beginning, your (technology) vendor will screw you, the vast majority of systems fail to deliver, because, once the contract is signed and you have access to the system, they have zero incentive to do anything else for you.

Similarly, once they have you on a multi-year contract, why should the GPO or consultancy have any incentive to go beyond the minimum? If you want them to continually serve you and look for ways to generate a return for you, make it worth their while. And then you won’t be paying them one dollar just to lose three dollars in return!

This is where you start. Then, you question any consulting contract over 100K to 200K as a mid-market and 1 Million as a large global enterprise. At that point you have to define the value you expect and what gain-share agreement you are going to craft to ensure it.

Breaking Down the Risks: IP/cyber attacks

The risk of cyber-attack and IP theft over digital domains is constant and high and not going away. Not much need to be expounding the pounding on this one, but we will and give you a few tips on reducing the risk.

Expounding the Pounding

Cyberattacks remain high. Incredibly high. In 2014, a high year for cyberattacks, a NetIQ (acquired by AttachmateWRQ) Cyberthreat Defense Report found that 71% of organizations were affected by a successful cyberattack in 2014 (while only 52% expected to fall victim again in 2015). ( Source )

In 2024, North American organizations experienced an average of 1,298 cyberattacks per week, according to Check Point Research, which represented a 55% year-over-year increase in attacks. These attacks affected over 70% of of small to medium-sized businesses, according to Embroker. In other words, despite the continued increase in security software, standards and protocols, cyberattacks haven’t decreased, and neither have their success rate.

Reducing the Risk

Procurement is going to have to finally embrace cybersecurity best practices in everything they do as well as work with IT to ensure that all of the applications they buy or license meet these best practices as well.

Note that when we say best practices, we don’t just mean ensuring the technology meets all the latest specs, but that the organization, and its personnel, also ensures that they they take information security, operational security, and physical security seriously as well. An organization that doesn’t protect its information outside of systems is insecure, and if this includes passwords, the systems have been compromised with one login attempt. An organization that doesn’t maintain proper physical security makes it easy for an experienced hacker (who understands social engineering) to walk in, access a system that is logged in, extract the access keys for the broader systems, and the organization’s systems are then completely accessible by a hacker. And of course, if the organization doesn’t maintain proper operational security, its employees will let hackers right in no questions asked and all of the systems will be compromised.

This will require proper training and monitoring until everyone understands the issues across the entire organization.

The Sourcing Innovation Source-to-Pay+ Cascading Mega Map! (2026 Edition)

 

(c) 2025-12-15

 

Still useless, but still slightly less useless than every other logo map that clogs your feed!

1. Every vendor offering verified as of 4 days ago!

2. Every vendor logo is clickable!

3. Every vendor is mapped to a meaningful category as of the last date of analyst investigation!

So what’s the point?

To again make it utterly clear you can’t select a vendor based on a random grouping of logos on a map, even if they are categorized!

Not even if the map categorizes the vendors by market size, industry, and/or geography. Those are just proxies for organizational spend, solution needs and cultural requirements. And not every mid-market manufacturing plant in the USA is the same.

The only way to select a good vendor is to follow a proper assisted process and engage an expert who understands what vendors are out there to identify the right vendors to invite to the RFP process once your true needs have been identified.

Especially considering the true number of vendors out there is many times more than what an average big analyst firm will tell you, especially when they restrict their recommendations to their paying clients in their maps, and multiples of what an average big consultancy will tell you, that only knows their partner solutions (that they need to maintain significant focus on to maintain their preferred partner status).

So let this be proof that there are a lot of logos and that, if you want logos, you got logos! 666 of them!

Source-to-Pay
Souce-to-Contract Procure-to-Pay Intake-to-Orchestrate
Sourcing + SXM + CLM Sourcing + Analytics SXM + Analytics e-Procurement Invoice-to-Pay / AP Expenses Payments (& P-Cards) Training
Sourcing + SXM Sourcing + CLM SXM + CLM Sourcing SXM CLM Analytics
Direct Supply Chain Cyber Monitoring ESG / Carbon Marketplaces Legal Marketing SaaS Intelligence

Source to Pay
corcentric coupa ebidtopay effigo
gep ivalua jaggaer onemarket onventis
raindrop sap simfoni synertrade zycus

Source to Contract
curtisfitch deepstream ensolva lgx
mercanis mercell merlin procol scanmarket
vendorpanel

Sourcing + SXM + CLM beneering buyingstation c1 cotiss
delta esm felix fullstep gainfront
intenda ionwave ispnext krinati lightsource
marketdojo marketplanet medius oalia oneadvanced
penny proactis proculy prokuria readytech
sourcingforce supplyon sustainment tradeinterchange vortal
workday zapro

SXM + CLM anydata birdseye brooklyn certa
convergepoint gatekeeper ignite itbid knovos
weproc

Sourcing + CLM aufait axya bidiful bonfire
cobblestone maistro prm360 safesourcing tradogram

Sourcing + SXM aerchain apadua archlet cimmra
cirplus cofactr inpromax k2 livesource
newtron oboloo opentrd pinpools pratis
procurekey procurementexpress promena prospeum qad
qcsolver sourcedogg srmeprocurement supplios teamprocure
tradebeyond truevaluehub valdera vendorful

Sourcing & Analytics curvo levadata requis

SXM & Analytics coglegal costbits everstream flowie
hivebuy lytica softconcis spendqube veridion

Contract Lifecycle Management (CLM) apporchid aavenir agiloft airflip
arteria atamis avvoka bonterms brightleaf
cipherace concord conga contracthound contractai
contractbook contractlogix contractpodai contracts365 contractsafe
dealsign docfield docjuris docusign dsilo
ebrevia evisort eyvo icertis inhubber
intelagree ironclad joro lawgeex legalrobot
legalsifter legartis lexcheck linksquares litera
luminance malbek opengov getoutlaw pocketlaw
pramata relativity simplicontract sirion spotdraft
terzo thinkingmachine thoughtriver tomorro trackado
trakti trueledger unimarket whitevision

Sourcing aestiva alpega amplio bamboorose
bestauction bideg bidlock bidso brainal
cosmoone enverus esupplier expenzing fairmarkit
keelvar lhotse loopio mysupply nextenders
onemoresource pagerduty partanalytics ply postrfp
procurementflow protendering responsive serex solvoz
sorcity supplychaincube supplyframe transfix wantex
zivio

Supplier Management (SXM) achilles adaptone agora alpas
apexanalytix aravo askafox auditcomply avetta
axiscope bedrock canopy cmx craft
creditriskmonitor enlightaspice eProcure eved exigis
franconnect ghx globality graphite grms
haloai hellios hicx informatica integritynext
interos isnetworld itesoft jiga kodiakhub
kyriba leanlinking lexisnexis linkana lupr
matchory mycomplianceoffice meshworks mfg opuscapita
orbweaver partnerelement paymentworks perimeter planergy
processunity procurence qmsc relatico resilinc
riskledger scoutbee silex smartkyc sourcemap
sphera stateofflux stimulus suppeco supplhi
supplierday supplierio suppliersoft supplyhive supplyrisksolutions
tacto tealbook thomasnet transcepta transparencyone
trustyoursupplier vendorapp vendorscoreit venminder zumen

Analytics acquireinsights aera akirolabs alteryx
analytics8 anaplan anvilanalytical calculum creactives
cxonexus deliciousdata digitate electrifai greencabbage
hunterai ivoflow kiresult metricinsights mithra
neqo onetrust oversight partnerling prgx
proaact procurevue pulse robobai rosslyn
scalue sievo silvon sourcinginsights spendata
spendboss spendedge spendhq spendkey smartcube
spendscape spendworx sps suplari tamr
vanta

Procure-to-Pay (P2P) b2be birchstreet b1p compleat
curemint dynatos elcom equallevel esker
ezatlas fraxion inbuild kissflow marketboomer
modernpo oracle orderco pagero pairsoft
payem precoro proceedo procuredesk procurenode
ramp settle softco sutisoft tradecentric
tradeshift vroozi

eProcurement bellwether bill brex causeway
controlhub cordis enkash factwise unanet
finexio fluentcommerce idas inorder lojistic
markit nimbi openenvoy payhawk procurementpartners
punnchoutcatalogs purchasingplatform sovra spendmap spendwise
teampay uppler vurbis yaydoo

Invoice-to-Pay (I2P) / Accounts Payable (AP) abby airbase apexpress appzen
aria avidxchange basware billtrust bluechain
candex concur coreintegrator corpay dataserv
directcommerce dooap edenred edicom emburse
ezcloud fiscal freshbooks getpaid glean
ipayables iqinvoice lexmark makershub mineraltree
nipendo nium opentext paid photoncommerce
procurify relish rillion sage servicenow
snapb2b snowfox sourceday spendconsole spendesk
stampli symbeo taulia tipalti xelix
xsuite yooz

EXPENSE airwallex deem expensify finetune
navan pleo pluto tangoe travelperk
worktrips

PAYMENTS & V/P-CARDS bluebean bottomline enable finix
payoneer previse transactis transfermate wise

Intake-Manage-Orchestrate
appian arkestro automationanywhere capto
celigo convergentis corvolo elementum focalpoint
levelpath netfira omnea ontra opstream
oro P2Cnnct pega pipefy pivot
procureai provalido qntrl sudozi tonkean
workfellow zflow zip

ESG/Carbon Scope 3
carbmee carbonaltdelete carbonanalytics carboncare
carbonchain carboncloud carbonfit carbonminds circularise
circulartree circulor climatecamp co2ai conserviceesg
cozero ctrls daato ditchcarbon ecovadis
emitwise greenkpi makersite measurabl minespider
responsibly sustainalytics trustrace veriforce verso
vertaeon watershed

Cyber Monitoring
cybersecurityintelligence securityscorecard

Direct Supply Chain
approve athingz contingent ensun
exiger exostar findmyfactory facturee frdm
genlots kreatize marvo gosupply nimbly
omx overhaul owlsolutions partfox partspace
prewave qstrat rapidratings sayari shouldcosting
supplywisdom trademo versedai visotrust whistic
wholechain xometry zetwerk

Legal
apperio brightflag bryter fulcrum
lawvu mitratech persuit thomsonreuters wolterskluwer

Marketing
agencymania alliansis decideware hhglobal
mtivity moosh rightspend

SaaS
appdirect apptio auvik beamy
bettercloud calero cledara cloudeagle diminish
entrio flexera flywl hudled lightyear
lumos nachonacho najar npi productiv
saasrooms sastrify setyl spendflow substly
torii trelica trgscreen tropic varisource
vendr vertice viio zluri zylo

Training
eveneum lavenir positivepurchasing

MarketPlaces
auxionize axiom bizeebuy cimple
collectivespend droppe faire growinco iap
joor kaleida mercadolibre partstrader procureafrica
produceiq rheaply smartequip sourceit unite
wescale

Intelligence
apriori aranca beroe bipsolutions
brightfield buynamics capella chai consource
convergencedata costdata cottrillresearch covalyze diprima
dnb easykost evpsolutions expana fareye
freightos freightender fuelme importyeti magayz
metalminer mtisystems nvelop pando paxly
moodysanalytics procureforce procurementiq shipsta sourceintelligence
sourceful sovos spikefli totalbid trax
truevaluehub trustpair xeneta

Does ProcureTech Generate Billions While Practitioners Lose Trillions?

A couple of weeks ago, THE REVELATOR, in his AI Whispering asked Why does the ProcureTech solution side of the table make billions, while the practitioner side loses trillions (and more)? And it’s a fair question. Because even though the practitioners don’t lose trillions on ProcureTech and ProcureTech consulting (as that’s only in the Billions), they DO lose Trillions on Tech and Tech Consulting that the ProcureTech Consulting and ProcureTech providers SHOULD be helping them save money on.

To be precise, at least 1.8 Trillion is going to be lost by Practitioners this year on Technology and Technology Consulting. Earlier this year, in our post on SaaS Spending, we predicted that at least 1.5 Trillion would be wasted based on total industry spend and an average waste of AT LEAST 30% (due to overspend, unused applications and project failure), but we are now revising that up to 1.8 Trillion based upon a minimum projected spend of 5.4 Trillion based on recent Gartner estimates.

To put this in perspective, only 15 countries have a GDP in excess of 1.8 Trillion! In other words, the total technology spend wasted is greater than the individual GDP of 92% of the countries on earth.

But it gets worse.

If you add up the global revenue of the 23 Big Consultancies, which you will be using for ProcureTech, FinTech, and related consulting, it comes to 551 Billion.

Accenture 65
Bain 7
BCG (Boston Consulting Group) 13
Capgemini 25
Cognizant 20
Deloitte 67
E&Y 51
Fujitsu 26
Genpact 5
HCL Technologies 14
Infosys 25
Kearney 2
KPMG 38
McKinsey 19
Mercer 2
NTT Data 30
Oliver Wyman 3
Publicis Sapient 18
PWC 55
Recruit 23
BAH (Booz Allen Hamilton) 1
Tata 31
Wipro 11

And if you add up the global revenues of the 9 big analyst firms, which you will be using for ProcureTech and Fintech advisory, it comes to 51.5 Billion.

Clarivate 0.5
Forrester 0.5
Gartner 6.5
Hackett 0.5
IDC 4.0
IQVIA 15.0
Kantar 3.5
Moodys 7.0
S&P 14.0

That’s a total of 602.5 Billion you’re spending for ProcureTech and FinTech consulting and advisory in return for a loss of roughly 1.8 Trillion!

In other words, for every dollar you spend, you lose three. That’s the reverse of the ROI you should be expecting. You should NOT be investing in Technology or Technology Consulting unless you will get a 3 to 1 return. But what you ARE doing is investing in Technology Consulting and Advisory for a 3 to 1 LOSS! That is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what you should be doing.

So what should you do? STOP!

Or, if you can’t stop, change the game. More to come …