RPA: Are We There Yet?

Nope. Not even close. And a recent Hackett study proves it.

Earlier this month, The Hackett Group released a point of view on Robotic Process Automation: A Reality Check and a Route Forward where they noted that while early initiatives have produced some tangible successes, many organizations have yet to scale their use of RPA to a level that is making a major impact on performance, likely because RPA has come with a greater-than-expected learning curve.

Right now, mainstream adoption of RPA is 3% in Finance, 3% in HR, 7% in Procurement, and 10% in GBS – Global Business Services. Experimentation (referred to as limited adoption) is higher, 6% in HR, 18% in Finance, 18% in Procurement, and 29% in GBS, but not that high, especially considering the high learning curve for the average organization will end up with a number of these not continuing the experiment.

Due to the large amount of interest, Hackett is predicting that, within 3 years, RPA will be mainstream in 11% of HR Organizations, a 4X increase, 30% of Procurement, a 4X increase, 38% of Finance, a 12X increase, and 52% in GBS, a 5X increase, as well as increases in experimentation. Experimentation will definitely increase due to the hotness of the topic, but mainstream adoption will require success, and as Hackett deftly notes, successful deployment requirements have certain key prerequisites too:

  • digital inputs
  • structured data
  • clear logical rules can be applied

And when the conditions are right, organizations:

  • realize operational cost benefits
  • have less errors and more consistent rule application
  • benefit from increased productivity
  • are able to refocus talent on higher-value work
  • strengthen auditability for key tasks
  • have enhanced task execution data to analyze and improve processes

But this is not enough for success. Hackett prescribes three criteria for success, which they define as:

  • selecting the right RPA opportunities
  • planning the journey
  • building an RPA team or COE

and you’ll have to check out Robotic Process Automation: A Reality Check and a Route Forward for more details, but is this enough?

Maybe, maybe not. It depends on how good of an RPA team is built, and how good they are at identifying appropriate use cases for RPA, and how good they are at the successful implementation. Success breeds success, but failure eliminates the option of continued use of RPA, at least until a management changeover.

The Hidden Value of SI Association

What’s the value of SI Sponsorship? Quite a lot — you can contact the doctor <at> sourcinginnovation <dot> com to find out more, but here are two interesting statistics that SI has not advertised until now:

1/3 of all companies that have had a commercial relationship with SI have merged or been acquired and are now bigger, more successful entities

2/3 of all companies that have sponsored SI have merged or been acquired and are now bigger, more successful entities

In other words, companies associated with SI have become so successful, they become very attractive to not only customers, but peers and PE firms! They have options!

To the best of SI’s knowledge, NO OTHER INDEPENDENT PUBLICATION or Independent Analyst Entity has had this success rate.

Can SI take all the credit?  Probably not, but the doctor is quite confident that the implied correlation is this — if you are visionary enough to focus on building your market (and work with SI to achieve that), instead of just trying to steal your competitor’s customers, you’re probably going to succeed.  And SI is one of the partners that is going to help you … greatly.

(And if you’re too big to merge or be acquired, don’t worry!  SI can still help you create new markets for your products.  And then you too can be happy.)

Trade is Getting Complicated. Trade Agreements More So. Are Your Contracts Up to Snuff?

It’s difficult enough to create contracts that specify what both parties want, but with the shifting global landscape, crumbling trade agreements, new ones rising to take their place, and new regulations cropping up all the time that companies need to adhere to just to do business in their home country, it’s almost impossible.

How do you define contracts that keep up? And, more importantly, how do you figure out which of your contracts are not up to par, and where they are falling short?

In the first case, you constantly monitor government sites, associations, and news sites for mention of new regulations and requirements to adhere to them. Then you process the news, make sense of the new requirements, and find some experts to help you understand the best way to contractually deal with the new rules.

In the second case, you need to be able to quickly analyze a contract and determine if there are clauses to address the regulations. But if it’s a 50 page contract, that’s not a quick effort. And if you have 1,000 of them? 10,000 of them? How can you even attempt to do that?

Manually, you can’t. You need tech that can identify which contracts are likely lacking one or more clauses to address one or more regulations and bring them to your attention, in order of priority. Advanced, semantic, technology that can understand documents, deficiencies, and suggest potential fixes.

And a few companies understand that, and that’s why you see the likes of companies like LawGeex and LegalSifter rising up to challenge Seal with a new take on contract analytics and the need for. Because, one way or another, once you reach a certain point on your sourcing journey, you’re going to need this technology.

One Vendor Won’t Rule Them All … And One Ring Won’t Bind Them!

A common question (from buying organizations and investors alike) these days is which vendor is going to win out in the end? Who will still be around in 5, 10, and 20 years and which horse should take all the bets?

The answer is no single vendor is going to win. And the reason for that is many-fold. One, different types of companies need different types of vendors. That’s why SpendMatters SolutionMaps (where 3.5 of the 4 SPT maps were developed by the doctor) classifies vendors according to six different buying personas. While six personas doesn’t quite cover all the buyers out there, it covers the majority and shows that most vendors don’t do everything well.

Two, different locales around the world have different regulatory and compliance requirements, as well as (culturally) different ways of doing business, and one vendor is not always going to be the right fit, if they are even a fit at all.

Three, different organizations are at different stages on their e-Sourcing journey and need a different amount of complexity — and if they are just beginning, there’s no way they will be able to start with, and adapt to, a complex 42-step sourcing platform designed as a one process fits all. (Yes, those still exist, and they are the reason some organizations are abandoning major players with solutions they’ve invested millions in for mid-market solutions that cost a tenth of the price with a tenth of the functionality.)

As a result, different organizations value different things depending on where they are on their journey. Companies just starting their e-Sourcing journey just want a simple, configurable, workflow that can be configured to minimal requirements. Companies a bit further along want to easily centralize and manage their supplier information. Companies further along want to be able to centralize all their spend and do advanced analytics. (Or vice versa, depending on who whispered in their ear first.) Companies quite advanced on their journey want advanced modelling and optimization capabilities.

In other words, the sourcing platform with the best workflow management solution will be a winner among the newbies. The sourcing platform with the best supplier lifecycle management platform will be a winner among those that need good supply base management. The sourcing platform with the best analytics will be a winner among those that need a good understanding of their spend. And the sourcing platform with the best optimization capability will be a winner among those that need to extensively model and optimize their supply chain.

Just like there are a multitude of winners in real estate who can make money focussing on low rental, suburban housing, condos, high-end mansions, low-end commercial, and high-end commercial, there will be a multitude of winners in the sourcing space. The best in each category — and each persona — will win.