Digital Procurement Transformation Requires Strategy and Design …

… not just new technology! (As THE REVELATOR would say, an agent-first approach, not an equation-first approach.)

A recent article on Turner and Townsend noted that while effective digital-first procurement strategies are key to capturing the necessary data and providing the comprehensive visibility needed to manage complex and multi-faceted risks, a digital-first procurement strategy demands a strategic overhaul – it cannot only be about adding technology to existing processes.

Furthermore, it needs more than a cultural shift to integrate a digital golden thread that aligns the organization’s overarching commercial vision and the enterprise-wide digital ecosystem. It needs a technological shift, one that goes from looking at technology as a saviour to technology as what it always was, just a tool, and a tool that only works if

  • properly selected,
  • properly used, and
  • placed in the hands of an appropriately educated, trained, and skilled individual.

Furthermore, it doesn’t matter how modern the tool, how much “AI” inside, or what provider is offering it. Just like a power drill won’t screw in a nail, a Gen-AI solution won’t provide a strategy, won’t analyze generic data in a meaningful way to select a sourcing strategy, and won’t properly parse and automate that invoice. (That’s not what it’s for. It will summarize large supplier RFP submissions and crawl through your contracts for common clauses, or lack thereof, but that’s it … it’s just a huge document parser and summarizer.)

Only the right platform will solve your problems, and you’ll only be able to select one if

  • you analyze your processes and identify the data you need
  • you analyze where the data comes from
  • you analyze who has to create / enter any data that needs to be manually vetted …
  • you determine the TQ level of all those individuals who need to use the system
  • you analyze the potential systems with respect to their ability to store the data you need, collect it automatically from any data feeds it is available in, and collect it through manual submission in easy-to-use interfaces that minimizes the chance of error on data entry
  • and when you find ones that meet the data need, then you confirm they can support the process needs …
  • and then you do vendor diligence.

But without the right platform, no progress will be made and, in fact, if you consider the failure stats, chances are the wrong platform will worsen the situation. Technology is NOT an easy button. You still have to do the work of vetting it, implementing it, configuring it, and even when it can automate a task, verifying it on a regular basis (as well as identifying when an exceptional condition arises and dealing with that regularly). Technology can make your life (much) more efficient, and easier, but it’s not an easy button. Never forget that.

Always Start Your Vendor Qualification with a Deep-Dive Demo!

In a recent article, THE REVELATOR asked how many practitioners do a pre-demo discovery call to determine whether seeing a demo is even warranted??

It was a fair question, but for most practitioners, the question is unnecessary because,

  • if you agreed to the demo as a practitioner, then you should have confirmed from the initial sales call that there was enough to actually see (by listening to a rep that sold a solution, not software, and that answered your tough questions);
  • the demo will tell you if it’s worth diving into the vendor’s background, philosophy, and services approach; and, most importantly,
  • if you’re not a senior executive at a large enough company, there’s no way you’re going to get the attention of the right people for that discovery call. (As a [perceived] unqualified lead, you’re not getting a senior person on that pre-demo interview … just a Sales VP who knows what to say to hook you, whether it’s true or not!)

The reality is that any discovery beyond an initial demo to confirm the vendor actually has a solution and, more importantly, a solution that might actually help you by solving some of your problems, is meaningless. Company history, philosophy, and go-forward don’t matter if they don’t have anything worth working with them.

It’s important to remember that technology cannot overcome a solution provider’s misaligned business values and goals. If the tech is wrong (or just not there), the tech is wrong. Not only do you need real tech (and not vapourware), but you need tech that solves one or more problems you have.

As such, if you dig in on a company before seeing the tech, you could be wasting your time. Especially if you do it for every provider given that you will likely go through half a dozen potential providers before you even find one worth to include in your RFP (when you consider all the overhyped marketing and misleading marketing you need to work your way through).

Moreover, forcing a demo early will quickly cause some vendors (without a solution) to self deselect! If you insist on a demo that shows how they solve the problems they claim and how it’s relevant to you, and they don’t have a deep solution and/or knowledge of your industry, they will likely decide it’s not worth the time trying to bluff you and save you the time and effort of invalidating them as a potential provider. (And, in effect, bypassing the technology-led equation-based providers off the cuff, since they won’t even get the demo if they can’t convince you they are about solving problems first and tech second.)

However, if you get through the demo, put the vendor on your shortlist, and tell them that, you can be sure your follow-up company deep dive call will include the right senior people at the vendor, and not just a say-what-you-want-to-hear Sales VP.

So You Admit You Might Be a Dead-Company Walking. How Do You Avoid the Graveyard? Part 4

In short, as per Part 1, you

  1. keep admitting to every mistake you are making and do something about it, then
  2. continue by looking for cost-effective opportunities for improvement and pursue them and finally
  3. never, ever, ever forget the timeless basics.

Today, we’ll continue by describing what you do when you identify, and admit to, one of the next two mistakes (mistakes 5 & 6) we chronicled in our two part introduction to our “dead company walking” (Part 1 and Part 2) series (where we helped your potential customers identify problems that signify you are a SaaS supplier they should be walking away from). (You can find part 2 and part 3 here.)

5) An innovation burst is enough, especially if it is disruptive

A successful innovation burst is great as it can get you noticed, and as it’s very hard to get noticed in an overcrowded space (again, see the Mega Map), that’s a great start. But someone noticing you does not mean they’ll engage with you, and engagement does not mean they will buy from you.

Moreover, it’s never long before a one-trick pony loses the limelight as fast as he enters it. If you want to stay in the limelight, which wants to move on to the next story as soon as you’ve had your 15 seconds of fame, you need to keep innovating, or at least developing the core functionality necessary to flesh out the value message to the point the overall message is so compelling people want to hear it and repeat it.

The reality is that it is continued development, especially around core processes your technology is being designed to support, that will at least keep you on the periphery of the limelight, and that is where you need to be to not only attract enough potential customers, but convert them into customers who want, as we’ve been stating repeatedly, solid solutions to their problem and not shiny tech that looks cool but doesn’t do what they need it to do.

6) Too much investment, too soon, against an overly ambitious plan

This is one of the biggest threats to your success, especially since you will be pushed to scale up fast to support the rapid growth, that won’t come, or at least not early in your corporate development. Falling for this will burn the cash well before you are even close to break-even, and if you can’t raise additional funds fast when you run out, you’re dead.

The first thing to do when you raise too much money is to stop dead in your tracks, stop all external hiring and engagement, and step back and do the detailed market research described in our first mistake and figure out the MVP you’ll actually need to build a significant market share, and focus first on hiring the talent / or acquiring the third party tech, to get there as soon as possible.

Then you need to figure out what not only makes a good customer, but one that is easy to sell. It’s likely that the majority of these customers will need education to get them there. The next thing to do is hire the product people who can build these educational assets for marketing, sales, partners, and customers.

When you get close on the product and the marketing, then you start to ramp up marketing and high-performing sales (who can work without a lot of support and incomplete, but progressing monthly, assets) to start building the initial funnel when you are ready to go hard.

Then start building up your services teams with senior resources who can do multiple roles and initial implementations with little support.

And only once all the pieces start falling into place do you start scaling up.

And in the process, be sure to:

  • review the marketing plan: cut the funding to anything not focussed on education and thought leadership in the early days
  • review sales: cut the “leads” to those truly qualified with problems that match your solution; and definitely cut the spray and forget power washer lead blasting from 3rd parties, you want well qualified leads only
  • review the development plan: make sure it’s 90% steak and only 10% sizzle; sizzle doesn’t solve problems, or fill bellies, and that’s why customers want steak
  • review the budget: anything not going to educational/thought leadership marketing, qualified solution-based lead generation, or solid development is extraneous and needs to be cut ASAP to ensure the money lasts until the solution is broad and deep enough to serve the intended market, command the expected price tag, and get the interest you need for steady, continued, growth

Stay tuned for Part 5!

Cost Savings is NOT Cost Cutting …

… and we need more articles that hammer this point home!

A recent article over on the Supply Chain Management Review (SCMR) focussed on how strategic cost savings differ from cutting costs, highlighted a recent survey from Boston Consulting Group (BCG) that found that while 65% of executives are prioritizing supply chain and manufacturing costs as the biggest levels for organizations to pull for cost savings, 52% [are still focussed on] labour and non-labour overhead costs. OUCH!

Most Supply Chain / Procurement Departments are understaffed and/or under platformed due to lack of talent and lack of available budget. They’re also a very small part of the organizational headcount, which in many organizations is now a small part of total spend. As a result, labour is not the problem. External spend is.

And kudos to the SCMR and Laura Juliano from the Boston Consulting Group for pointing out that strategic cost control is the right approach.

If you’re spending 100M on a category, you should be doing a lot more than just a 3-bids-and-a-buy RFX, cutting a PO, and paying an invoice. A lot more. And looking at more than just the unit cost — at the very least the total cost of ownership from initial acquisition through warranty/repair and eventual disposal, if not full total value management which also looks at brand value, bundled services, etc. Even well managed direct categories usually have 3% or more savings opportunities, and those that were not well managed can have two to three times that (in the 6% to 9% range). In other words, giving one person the time to properly source one category, even if it takes 3 months of man effort, can save 3M. Even if the fully burdened resource costs your organization 240K a year, that’s an ROI of 50X on the proper use of that one resource’s time.

This one example surfaces the key point of strategic cost control. It requires strategy and strategy requires PEOPLE with real HUMAN INTELLIGENCE (HI!). (Not hallucinatory Gen-AI like “chat, j’ai pété”). People who can analyze the situation, the available data, case studies from similar (historical) market situations, suppliers, products, and make the overall best decision(s) for the organization. And, preferably, people who can also consider the sustainability of their decision (and the implications with respect to any regulations in laws in countries they source from and sell to). (Senior Procurement leaders can’t ignore any sustainability requirements they are subject to [40% are], they definitely can’t be unaware of legislation that could affect them [37% are], and they definitely can’t be making awards to suppliers and/or for products that might just disappear in a year or three.)

In other words, you can’t reduce headcount. (You may need to replace people if you initially hired people who thought strategic procurement was catalog comparison or invoice verification, of which 95% to 99% can be fully automated, but never, ever reduce the number of people in Procurement.)