Breaking Down the Risks: Supply shortages/constraints / Competitive alternatives

Supply will never be assured. You have to be ready for that! Let’s again begin by expounding the pounding and then give a few tips on reducing the risks.

Expounding the Pounding

In some ways, this is one of the key risks contributing to the rising cost/spend pressure risk that we discussed in our last article, because even if an organization doesn’t see it, their tier 1 (and tier 2) suppliers will!

However, it is definitely its own category as there might be a surplus of supply, but current constraints make it inaccessible. For example, in the rare earths category in particular, the majority of global supply might be from one or two countries. If those countries become inaccessible due to a sanction, border closing due to a war or geopolitical unrest, or a logistics (cost) nightmare, then you effectively have a shortage even if there are theoretically stockpiles in a warehouse waiting for someone.

Plus, you don’t just have constraints around production, you have them around logistics (how many pallets can fit in the truck, how many pallets in the container, how many containers you can have on the ship, etc.), intermediate storage, export and import (as there are quotas and limits and passing those can be costly), and so on. All of these constraints can impact your supply and cause chaos.

Reducing the Risk

The two generic answer(s) here are the same as two of the answers to the risk of rising costs in our last post. You need to ensure that you always have

  1. Alternate Supply Sources Always Active
  2. Alternative Product/Component/Material Pre-Defined

That’s it. If supply is not available from supplier A, you need to have a supplier B on retainer (low minimum contract) ready to go. If there is all of a sudden no significant source for a material (due to a disaster, border closing, or trade route interruption), then you need to have an alternate design that can use an alternate material and switch production.

Breaking Down the Risks: Rising cost/ spend pressures/inflation

This risk is as old as Procurement itself. Demand drives prices. Always has, always will. But let’s start by expounding the pounding before we give you a few tips to deal with it.

Expounding the Pounding

Costs rise. Continually. The average rate of inflation in the United States over the past hundred years is approximately 3.2%. That means that something that cost $1 in 1914 would cost approximately $33 today. Costs go up. However, costs are not static. During pandemics, wars, natural disasters, and market crashes where there are huge drops in supply and surges in demand, or vice-versa, the average rate of inflation can quintuple or more (with a recorded rate of 23.7% in June 1920). The same happened to shipping costs during the pandemic. Three thousand dollar shipping contains shot up to thirty thousand, a factor of ten.

However, it’s not just inflation, and surges, that are the issue. It’s also consumer demand. If consumer demand shrinks as costs rise, and the company, and its suppliers, are unable to reach and maintain the optimal economy of scale, costs will rise even more. (Every company has its own optimal output level where it can operate at maximum efficiency and maximize outputs relative to inputs. If output is too low, and resources are not being used at capacity during regular operating intervals, the cost per unit of product is higher than it should be. Similarly, if that peak is surpassed, then overtime will need to be added, additional equipment and lines, which can’t be kept producing at optimal levels, will need to be added and so on.)

And, of course, it is available supply. If the product requires a renewable commodity or raw material where there are limited harvests or limited mining capacity, there just won’t be the supply to meet a rapid demand surge. This will cause prices to surge even more (as sellers sell only to the highest bidders as the balance of power shifts fully to them).

Due to the rapid rise in global market uncertainty around product and material availability and cost — due in part to an increase in natural disasters and extreme weather, wars, geopolitics and trade wars — managing this balance between consumer demand, market supply, cost, and inflation is a tough equation.

Reducing the Risk

There’s no easy or truly global solution here. Every category, and product, is different. Every supply and demand market is different. Every country has its own trade rules, economic plans, and sanctions. And all of this can change overnight. A mine collapse or factory fire. A rapid drop in demand due to recession. A new sanction or 145% tariff. And so on.

However, if we break it down, there are three main risks:

A) Unexpected Supply Unavailability

Due to a natural or man-made disaster, your (primary) source gets cut off.

B) Unexpected Drop in Consumer Demand

Due to a new external market condition (recession and/or massive layoffs, more popular competing product, brand backlash, etc.), consumer demand suddenly drops.

C) Unexpected rapid cost increase due to natural or man-made events.

A pandemic, droughts in Panama, or terrorists (in the Red Sea) slow down or cut off shipping routes and escalate costs. Or a mine collapse shoots up raw material costs.

For each of these risks, there is a primary solution:

A) Dual/Tri-Sourcing

It’s critical to always have an alternate source of supply in an alternate geography that can be scaled up rapidly if the primary source of supply becomes unavailable. Don’t do 80/20 or even 70/30 splits if the product, part, or material is critical. Do 60/40 and make sure both suppliers could handle at least 50% additional capacity before awarding. (That way you are still fine if the 40% supplier becomes unavailable as you should be able to scrape by long enough to find an emergency replacement supplier, even if the cost increases moderately. Most importantly, if the 40% supplier is willing to do some OT, you would still be fine for a short interval as long as you were willing to pay some OT related costs – and there’s no way that would be the case with a supplier getting less than 40% of the award.) Better yet, for (very) large categories, do 40/30/30 splits (possibly by giving majority per regions if your organization is global). In this situation, one supplier becoming unavailable wouldn’t be a serious problem as you’d be fine if the other suppliers could supply an extra 50% to 60%.

B) Flexible / Discount-Based Contracts

Never assuming continually increasing demand. Hope for it, but look at past averages, rises, and falls, and typical drops in demand from an unexpected, negative, market impact, and negotiate contracts for a range, with cost reductions (and not discounts) when thresholds are reached. In other words, once you know the expected worst case to expected best case range, ask for quotes for at least 3 tiers, the minimum, the expected, and the best case range and negotiate a contract with price breaks when certain demands are reached. (Suppliers will love to offer rebates when you hit a tier, but don’t fall for that because you’ll never realize them because the onus will be on you to prove that you’ve purchased the required quantity. Even if you have the best e-Procurement system on the planet and capture every order, as well as returns and show any refunds were accounted for, and can document it all, you still might not get the rebate. The supplier could claim hardship or, if the amount is significant enough, file for bankruptcy protection and restructuring. And even if they have the money, if you can’t assemble and provide the necessary documentation before the contract expires, forget about the rebate after the contract expires.) As long as you ensure every order, invoice, and goods receipt, flows through your e-Procurement system, you can ensure that as soon as the first discount tier is reached that you issue the PO for the lower amount. (And then your system will refuse to auto-approve it if the invoice doesn’t reduce the unit cost appropriately).

This way, you’re paying more than you’d like if you hit the worst case, but you’re not paying a huge penalty when you don’t hit the contracts and the suppliers come after you for damages.

C.i) Alternative Source Ramp-Up

If the price skyrocketed due to a supply issue with a specific region or supply base, you switch to the alternate supply in another region until the issue passes or you identify a new secondary (or tertiary) supplier for the product or component or material.

C.ii) Alternative Product/Component/Material

If the price skyrocketed due to a drop in supply, pushing all the power to the suppliers, then you switch to alternative products/components/materials. This is difficult because you need to have alternate designs ready to go for custom-made products and have previously identified alternatives for standard/off-the-shelf products which, while more costly or less desirable at the time, are now the most cost effective or most desirable products/components/materials due to the change in market dynamics by a material/component/product unavailability.

Unfortunately, while these solutions all sound simple, they are different for every category, product, material, organization, and geography. Risk management and supply assurance (as summarized the doctor‘s and Bob Ferrari’s Direct Sourcing MUST be Supply Chain Aware and Vice Versa series, summarized in Part 7) become as important as cost, and in some locales, carbon management when sourcing. The (expected) worst case has to be considered at all times and key events need to result in multiple, but balanced, awards.

And of course, when it comes to risk management, there will always be exceptions to the rule that you need to look out for.

Who’s Funding Your ProcureTech Vendor?

This question is more important now than ever! Not only is the RCD (Relative Corporate Debt) of many FinTech companies too high right now (See: Calculating RCD), signalling a decline in customer service and potential abandonment, if not outright vendor failure down the road, but the ongoing viability of many VC and PE firms, or at least their ability to support their investments, is also in question.

Many firms are too heavy on AI plays that are still losing as much as $4 (or more) for every $1 of revenue they take in, requiring massive ongoing investments to maintain. Even big PE funds only have so much cash to burn, and the only way they can do this is to liquidate assets and holdings if they can, or, in the worst case, simply write off losses (and associated future costs) of those holdings they can’t liquidate.

Softbank’s end-of-year investment in OpenAI really puts this into perspective, as chronicled by Mr. Klein of Curiouser.AI and Berkley in this LinkedIn post.

As far as I am concerned, this is bad news for any of SoftBank’s FinTech holdings that may require funding in the next few years, and a warning to make sure you don’t select / continue / depend on any of their FinTech holdings where they have a large or majority stake until verifying those holdings are profitable and likely to stay that way! (Now, SoftBank has traditionally had very good investment chops, so it’s likely the majority of holdings are profitable …)

However, they aren’t the only firm making huge over-investments in AI and weighting the portfolio down with companies that might never see a profit. This means that this warning also applies to many other Tech investment funds, starting with Thrive, Dragoneer, Altimeter, and Coatue who also have large stakes in OpenAI. They could all end up in the position where they are going to have to sell off / dump assets to maintain the ridiculous losses OpenAI is seeing, and any holdings not performing well will likely be the first to go / get dropped. (Remember that the average age of the first three of these groups is 15 years, and they are [becoming] modern SaaS/AI heavy, whereas Softbank Capital has been investing for 30 years, and is a lot more diversified. Softbank may be able to weather a complete crash in OpenAI valuation if it occurs. But these other firms may not!)

But, as we noted, the real warning is not for SoftBank or these other mega funds (in the significant 8 and 9 digit range) that have funds to weather a storm. It is for the smaller funds, especially those less than 1 Billion, that are too AI heavy.

As a result, when selecting any FinTech platform, you need look at the portfolio of any investment player with a substantial majority stake. If a large segment of the portfolio of a significant/majority investor is “AI” companies losing money hand over fist, then the vendor of that FinTech platform cannot be considered a stable vendor if it is not profitable. This is because you can’t count on the fund having the resources to support the vendor to profitability, even if vendor is a fund darling. This is the case even if the RCD calculation looks good! A lot of the smaller funds can’t afford an AI crash given the AI-heavy focus of their SaaS portfolio.

(Face it. An AI crash is coming. Too much valuation against too little return, and investors only have so much patience. The only thing we don’t know is how severe the crash is going to end up being. Is it going to be a minor drop across the tech markets or a major crash like the 2008 housing crash or the 1999/2000 dot com crash?)

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.