Category Archives: Technology

Technological Damnation 85: Apps

Of all the technological damnations, this is probably one of the most annoying. Procurement is B2B, not B2C, and there is not an app for that. The only app we need in Procurement is an app for getting each and every person who says there’s an app for that diagnosed as mentally insane and committed. Because, when it comes to Enterprise Procurement, there is no app for that!

In order to make this crystal clear, let’s define exactly what an app is:

An app is a piece of software designed to run in a browser or on a mobile deice

So why isn’t this enterprise procurement? Again, let’s start with a definition.

Enterprise Procurement is the act of buying raw materials, components, goods, services, works, or other consumables from an external source to support the needs of the business and its consumers. This act involves a process that starts with (strategic sourcing), moves on to contract negotiation and management, involves supplier performance and relationship management, generates requisitions and purchase orders, that are followed by invoices and goods receipts, matches, payments, and inventory management.

You really think there is an app for that? Really?

Let’s be clear.

  • Approving a requisition is not an enterprise procurement application.
  • Viewing a report is not an enterprise procurement application.
  • Checking the status of a shipment is not an enterprise procurement application.
  • Placing an order is not an enterprise procurement application.
  • And every other tinky-dink feature you can do in a browser is not an enterprise procurement application.

When it comes to enterprise Procurement, there are only platforms. Anything less is a waste of time, money, and bits. But the app bullsh!t is increasing by the day. It’s a damnation. See it for what it is.

Twenty Years Ago Today …

… the following words were simultaneously published in both the Washington Post and The New York Times.

1. The Industrial Revolution and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. They have greatly increased the life-expectancy of those of us who live in “advanced” countries, but they have destabilized society, have made life unfulfilling, have subjected
human beings to indignities, have led to widespread psychological
suffering (in the Third World to physical suffering as well) and have
inflicted severe damage on the natural world. The continued
development of technology will worsen the situation. It will certainly
subject human beings to greater indignities and inflict greater damage
on the natural world, it will probably lead to greater social
disruption and psychological suffering, and it may lead to increased
physical suffering even in “advanced” countries.

2. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break
down. If it survives, it MAY eventually achieve a low level of
physical and psychological suffering, but only after passing through a
long and very painful period of adjustment and only at the cost of
permanently reducing human beings and many other living organisms to engineered products and mere cogs in the social machine. Furthermore, if the system survives, the consequences will be inevitable: There is no way of reforming or modifying the system so as to prevent it from depriving people of dignity and autonomy.

3. If the system breaks down the consequences will still be very
painful. But the bigger the system grows the more disastrous the
results of its breakdown will be …

These were scary words then, and they are scary words now.

They were scary words then because they were the first three paragraphs of the Unabomber‘s manifesto — a former mathematician and Professor who engaged in a nationwide bombing campaign against people involved with modern technology where he planted or mailed numerous homemade bombs that were encased in or disguised as wood as to fool people as to the package’s contents.

And they are scary words now because while much of the manifesto is arguable, these paragraphs have an unnervingly truthful ring to them (which fades as the reader works further into the manifesto, but is there in the beginning).

1. While the industrial revolution has been a great boon for the first world countries, the third world countries have suffered. Consider our recent post on Societal Damnation 48: Worker’s Rights which exemplified the (sometimes abysmally) poor working conditions overseas that often lead to suicide and death on a regular basis. It’s bad enough that people in these poor countries still have to contend with yellow fever and malaria, two pandemics that annually kill hundreds of thousands of people, but they sometimes have to risk their lives everyday just to put food in their mouths and the mouths of their children.

2. Global Warming is increasing. And the occurrence of natural disasters due to the resulting changes in weather patterns is increasing as well. Droughts. Fires. Hurricanes. Tsunamis. They are getting worse and more frequent.

3. Continued development and utilization of technology in an uncontrolled*1 manner will worsen the situation as it has always done.

4. The industrial-technological system may survive or it may break down. We’ve seen rumblings of failure on a massive scale with recent failures of big automative companies that required big bailouts to prevent what was projected to be even bigger failures. With the return of inflation and a slowdown in global growth, we can see a breaking point. That doesn’t mean we’ll ever hit the breaking point, but it does mean that our system is not perfect.

5. If the system breaks down, the fallout will be severe and painful in first and third world countries. And the bigger a system gets before it fails, the worse the consequences.

As tempted as we are to push aside and forget the ramblings of a serial killer and a terrorist, we have to remember that despite his very misguided views, he was still a very smart man with an IQ of 167 who saw some of the harsh realities of the world for what they were. (Unfortunately, he did not see the right way of addressing them.)

I. Technology on its own is not good (or bad). It is only how it is used that determines whether it is good or bad, so we have to use it wisely.

II. If we do not replace what we take from nature, we will continue to deplete the environment, possibly to a point where it can no longer sustain us.

III. If we continue to harm the environment, it will harm us back. Nature is a delicate balance, and the more we disrupt it, the more it will disrupt us with natural disasters of unprecedented levels.

IV. If we continue to march forward like there is no limit to economic growth, we may push the system over the edge. If population growth is 1% per year, it is foolish to expect that economies can continue to grow at 4%, 6%, 8% or more per year. Simply foolish. And trying to force the system to grow at an unsustainable rate could break it.

V. If the system breaks, we go from being damned to being dead.

We don’t have the answers here at SI, but we do know that the problems will never be solved if they are ignored. And we do know that:

a. We can do our best to make sure that each application of technology is for a greater good (and not just implemented for technology’s sake).

b. We can continue to research and invest in renewable resources and product designs that use renewable resources.

c. We can build factories that use cleaner production processes, trap particulates, and filter wastewater for dangerous contaminants before such water is pumped back into streams and rivers.

d. We can create realistic growth projections and be happy when we reach them, rather than create unrealistic projections that force us to manipulate the books, steal marketshare by any means necessary, or use a supply chain likely powered by slave labour to make the numbers.

e. We can design a sustainable system rather than one with a limited lifespan.

And if we take it one step at a time, there’s no reason that the overall global situation can’t improve over time, leaving future generations to wonder how there could ever have existed a world like the one described by Mr. Kaczynski which pushed him, and other eco-terrorists, over the edge.

*1 This is one thing Mr. Kaczynski got wrong. Not all technology is bad. Most technology is neither good nor bad, it’s whether it is used or abused. Hence his claim that the continued development of technology will worsen the situation is wrong in its unqualified form.

Why You Should Not Build Your Own Contract Management System

A couple of months ago, SI ran a short series on Why You Should Not Build Your Own e-Sourcing System, which also included pieces on Why You Should Not Build Your Own Spend Analysis, Why You Should Not Build Your Own e-Negotiation Platform, and Why You Should Not Build Your Own Decision Optimization because he heard that a
few public sector organizations have this crazy idea that they can build their own and that it can, somehow, compete with best-of-breed solutions on the market today.

As per that series, this is not the case.

And even though SI has said in the past not to put too much emphasis on traditional, first generation, contract management solutions compared to analysis and optimization when the organization is seeking efficiency and cost savings, because most first generation contract management solutions looked like they were built by a high school student in Microsoft Access (and offered no more functionality than such a solution would contain), this doesn’t mean you should build your own either.

First of all, newer contract management systems go beyond simple document management functionality, and, thus, contain significant functionality that cannot be built by a high school student with Microsoft Access.

Second, most users want a Microsoft Word experience for authoring or versioning, regardless of whether or not there is a better way, so you will have to spend countless hours on a seamless Word integration, and Microsoft integration is no piece of cake.

Third, you will be wasting a lot of time and money re-inventing the wheel that has already been reinvented about a dozen time. Talk about a big waste of (public) money!

Consider the core absolutes of contract management that everyone can agree on.

1. Authoring & Versioning

As we just said, everyone, and especially everyone in Legal, wants Microsoft Word authoring & versioning, so no matter what you do, this integration will be essential. And most CM vendors have this, so why reinvent the wheel?

2. e-Signature

Most people think this is a core part of contract management, and while it is not, since not all jurisdictions recognize e-Signatures and not all companies will allow them, but if they are jurisdictionally accepted, or even mandated, this is core. However, implementing a secure e-Signature (which is not the same as a digital signature by the way, see this piece on “e-signatures and digital signatures in procurement definitions and considerations” over on Spend Matters that was co-authored by the doctor for clarification) is not easy, and will require some serious development chops on your staff. Plus, how will you get it adopted and proved when there are about 40 global providers (even though the top 4 dominate most of the market)?

3. Document Management, Search & Discovery

There might be a few dozen free open-source content management systems, but that doesn’t mean you can re-purpose them as good contract management systems. First of all, contract management requires the management of contracts, amendments, schedules, work orders and related insurance certificates, regulatory approvals, and documentary deliverables. These all have to be related, indexed, cross-correlated, and chronologically ordered when a user is looking for current prices, terms, or schedules or prices, terms, or schedules when a work order was submitted. Secondly, meta-data will never be complete so full text search on various document, and image, formats will also be required along with seamless integration with meta data search. This is a fair amount of coding, which has already been perfected in a number of contract management systems.

4. Alerts & Reporting

Contract Management requires the accomplishment of necessary tasks on a scheduled basis, which often only happens when people are reminded. That’s why alerts are necessary. And status updates across contracts often require reports, as well as updates on all active contracts against a supplier, spend against a contract, etc. Across the organization, dozens of different reports will probably be required. Do you really want to waste countless hours developing dozens of reports with dozens of variations to please everyone when a number of packages not only contain a full library to start from and a report builder to alter existing and create new reports? Hopefully not!

Plus, today’s next generation contract management solutions, which do a lot more than initial contract management solutions did last decade, often cost less than their predecessors? So why waste what could amount to millions rebuilding a shoddier version of the wheel?

For more information on what next generation contract management systems can do, please refer to the ongoing series on CLM by the doctor, the maverick, and the prophet over on Spend Matters Pro (membership required):

  • Part I: An Introduction
  • Part II: Understanding the Platform Model
  • Part III: Mapping the Upstream and Downstream Contract Phases
  • Part IV: Traditional Solutions
  • Part V: The Core Platform
  • Part VI: The Standard Platform
  • Part VII: The Extended Platform

Technological Damnation 91: Proprietary Madness

It’s bad enough that we have to deal with IP & Patent Madness, as chronicled in our post on the 89th (Technology) Damnation, but proprietary madness is likely to drive us all mad (and may someday push the doctor over the edge, into the land of the crackpot, where at least one blogger in the space is already dwelling).

Just what is proprietary madness? It’s mega-corporations, especially in software and electronics, taking the rights of ownership to extreme. Started, and continued, by the current and former Technology heavyweights, including the likes of IBM, Microsoft, and SAP, it’s not only the creation of company specific standards for software and hardware interfaces, its the restriction of the specification of those interfaces to approved partners and suppliers, limiting the supply of support services and related products to a handful of vendors. This not only drives up the price of those products and services to well above the market average price for support services for software and products with open and published specifications, but can make it difficult, if not impossible, to get support when demand is high or related products if one of the few vendors who can produce products shuts down.

Those of you with SAP know exactly what we’re talking about. Unlike Oracle, which publishes its core schema, and does not change it between minor versions, SAP does not publish its score schema, does not guarantee any stability between bug updates between minor versions, such as between 4.7.1 and 4.7.2, instead requiring you to go through its proprietary NetWeaver interface, which you will, of course, have to acquire to actually support any customizations (and likely build applications in the Portal). And learning the portal is no easy task. One of the most complete books on it is 700 pages alone! Then you need to find the documentation on the data stored in each R3 module you are interested in and how to get it out. There’s a reason that not every shop does SAP support — and that’s because, even though SAP now has a lot of documentation on their website, you need weeks of expensive training just to learn the basics of Portal Development, R3 interface, and the core data types and record types used to pull the data you need out of R3 and push modified data back in. Getting to the point where you are effective at developing and integrating custom supply chain applications requires months of training and mentoring and years of experience. As a result, it’s typically only SAP partners who can provide this support. In contrast, with an open Schema, as found in Oracle and MySQL, all you need is SQL experience and the interface library for whatever language you are using (whereas NetWeaver limits you to Java) — which makes it much easier (and cheaper) to not only find support resources, but vendors with best of breed software modules and platforms that can plug and play with Oracle right out of the box!

But it’s not just software vendors that create proprietary technologies, it’s hardware vendors too. Dell, IBM, HP, etc. all have custom control and administrative solutions for their server platforms. Want a third party virtualization platform to work out of the box on a new server configuration and take full advantage of the capabilities? forget it! You’ll probably have to wait six months to a year or more before third parties, like VMWare, are optimized and configured for those platforms (assuming that the full specifications are published upon technology release and licenses for custom drivers aren’t required), making their administrative software a must if you want to upgrade to the latest technology, and not upgrade to technology that was outdated a year ago.

But it’s not just IT companies that have proprietary technologies and interfaces. Big electronics companies do this too for most of their consumer (and even enterprise) electronics, including companies like Samsung (and its new Mobile AP core) and Sony (and its new ultra high definition TV technology).

And while there is nothing wrong with proprietary technology, as a company needs some assets in order to survive, the lengths at which some companies go to keep it secret and protect it, in a world where data needs to be shared and products need to be utilized with other products makes development (and the supply chains that rely on that development), a nightmare.

We need open standards and open interfaces. The sheer existence of IE alone should make that clear. (There’s a reason that many new IT start ups simply won’t support it anymore, and that’s because they can write stuff that runs almost flawlessly in Chrome, Firefox, and a dozen of other browsers or that runs almost flawlessly in a single version of IE on Windows platforms only, but not both. Since Chrome and Firefox and similar clone browsers run on all major platforms, and IE doesn’t, and since Chrome and Firefox almost fully support the open standards, whereas IE supports the Microsoft standards and those portions of the open standards it feels like, and, to top it off, [older versions of] IE allows case insensitive JavaScript!) Restrictive proprietary standards and interfaces just make life unnecessarily difficult.

But too many companies are too big and powerful, so it’s not going to happen and we’ll be forever wasting countless hours checking interface requirements, versions, and support availability instead of focusing on whether or not the technology meets our needs and will help us get our work done. It’s more daily damnation for all of us.

Today Nintendo Lowers its 2DS Price to Just 99.99 USD

In the ongoing battle to milk every cent out of an obsolescing platform before it’s time comes to an end, today, as per ars technica, Nintendo lowers its 2DS price to 99.99 USD.

Why is this significant? It emphasizes a harsh reality of Sourcing in just about any technology or non-raw material category. Whatever you’re sourcing today, you won’t be sourcing tomorrow, and if you are, chances are the organization won’t be around much longer as sales will dry up, the balance sheet will dip into the red, and bankruptcy will be inevitable.

But should it be this way? In the age of the PC, even though, as Weird Al clearly pointed out in the now classic It’s All About the Pentiums, it was obsolete before you opened the box, it didn’t mean that you had to throw the whole thing out and get a new one to take advantage of advancements. Motherboards had removable processors extra slots and you could throw in or replace cards with math co-processors, better video cards, parallel and serial device interfaces to printers, scanners, and analog signal converters, etc. Now, you knew that eventually you would have to upgrade when a better bus came along or the register size doubled, but even then the new mother boards came with interface slots to the previous generation cards so you could keep using them until you were ready to replace them. You could keep the same case for the better part of decade with smart upgrades.

Now we have slim case laptops where everything is built in and nothing is upgradeable. You have to buy a whole new unit every two years. Not only does this mean Sourcing needs to source a whole new product design at least every six months, but it also has to focus on reclamation. Many modern electronics, especially those that run on cellular or wireless networks, require a significant amount of rare earth minerals and expensive metals that need to be reclaimed due to the limited supply. Plus, in many locales, it’s illegal for a consumer to throw it out, and not only do they need to take the product to a recycling location, but some locales, such as the EU, require the producer to take the product back and appropriately recycle it.

But you know all this, as SI has been ranting about this and the need to design for recycling since the beginning, but, at this point, that’s not enough.

At this point, SI really thinks that all products need to be designed for perpetual upgrade. It should be possible to replace all components of a device as needed as they wear out or need to be upgraded. And it needs to be easier than it was with old desktop computers where you had to open the case, remove a bunch of wires to get to the card/drive/processor, do a precise sequence of presses, twists, and pops to safely get the component out, do the reverse to get it back in, reattach the wires, put the case back on, and then power up and test you don’t cross any wires (while wearing rubber gloves, just in case).

Each component should be a self contained “box” with a standard interface connector, using an upgradeable design that can support the fastest speed the configuration of connected components can effectively support. For example, a copper-based multi-pin connector (which, as demonstrated by Thunderbolt and USB 3.1, can support data transfer rates in excess of 10 Gbit/s) for low-end consumer devices and optimal connections (which, as multiplexing technology, will allow faster and faster transfers in the future) for high-end consumer devices and business devices. Boxes should have multiple smart connectors that can register the type of device they are connected to, and the devices they are connected to (as the components will communicate over an internal high-speed network), allowing the device to be upgraded with new components, and capabilities, not imagined when the initial set of components were first built.

For portability, durability, and weather-proofing, custom enclosure boxes could be built that would hold a standard set of components that would represent a power-house desktop computer or a portable tablet/laptop (where the screen slid out of a sheath and plugged in to the top of the main box and the keyboard folded down).

We may never see this, but imagine how much easier it would be for everyone if the same components could be used for years, investments lasted longer, and Sourcing strategies could be more consistent and predictable.

Just a revelation encased in a rant triggered by a reaction to another price reduction required by planned obsolescence.