Contract Management for Small Companies is …

James Meads isn’t saying it in this LinkedIn post, but he’s hit the nail on the head with an old-school hammer. (Unlike the shiny new hammer, the old school hammer actually works.) For most small enterprises, they don’t need full contract lifecycle management, they need document centralization and visibility and time-based reminders. That’s it!

This is because they:

  • do negotiations through phone and Word-redlining,
  • use hand signatures through scans and emails,
  • place orders through e-docs in standard format to receipt email addresses because they don’t have a fancy e-Procurement system which does integrated P2P
  • don’t have a modern AP system that can ingest contract meta-data and they still need a clerk to enter the price tables manually
  • still need to enter the non-order commitments manually into their project planning tool
  • etc.

What they need is old-school document management built on a CMS (Content Management Solution) tailored for contract documents and Procurement needs. That’s it!

This is not a 50K to 250K solution, but a 5K solution … (especially since most CMS is essentially shareware these days)!

Now, once you hit the true mid-market, and start spending 50M to 100M a year or more, you need a lot more advanced capability across the board, and if you’re contract heavy, spending 50K to centralize all of the above and do true automated end-to-end lifecycle management efficiently is peanuts. However, when you’re less than 50M revenue, spending at most 20M externally, and only have a few categories large enough to negotiate significant discounts, you just don’t need advanced S2P solutions, or the price tag. Anything that enables a standard process is all you need. (Even if you are a F500/G1000, the reality is that just having a basic solution that enables a standard process will likely get you 90% of the “savings” the most advanced suites promise at 5X to 10X the price tag. At the end of the day, most firms only have a few [dozen] categories [at most] where a more advanced solution is needed to extract value.)

(And then, as you grow, there are great Mid-Market S2P suites that start in the 50K range, with the best/most extensive maxing out around 250K a year, meaning you don’t need to go to a mega suite and pay millions. But since Gartner, Forrester, etc. maps will never list them, you do have to look for them. But you have resources. James’ site. Sourcing Innovation. etc.)

Your SaaS Vendor Should be TRUSTworthy … But They Shouldn’t Have to Tell You!

In fact, I’d argue it’s a red flag if they do. But let’s backup.

A trustworthy vendor is one that

1) Clients Trust

2) Clients’ Third Parties Trust

3) Suppliers and Partners Trust

4) Third Party Analysts and Consultancies Trust

… and all of these will imply trust in their recommendations and reviews, even if they don’t explicitly say it.

Digging in.

1) They treat you like a client from the first interaction.

The first interaction asks about your needs, not just what you are looking for.

They tailor the demo to your business and categories.

They answer your questions openly and honestly, don’t deflect from features they don’t have today, give you real timelines, and offer workarounds until they deliver.

Once you sign, they guide you through implementation and change management, work beside you to train you, and always respond beyond SLA requirements.

They don’t just focus on immediate results, but on ensuring you level up and could continue to get results without them. They act like a partner.

2) They treat your suppliers and partners like clients too.

They’re always there to help, they make it easier for the supplier than their competitors, and prove their value to the point the suppliers want to use them too.

3) They’re fair to their suppliers and partners. They pay on time. They work with them. They take blame when it’s their fault and not the supplier’s or partner’s … who like working with them more than other companies.

4) Analysts and consultancies happily recommend them even when they’re not (paying to be) on the Map or a preferred partner. Sometimes when they aren’t even the most appropriate solution just because their customers are so much happier.

It becomes so obvious that you don’t even have to ask the question (and you know that if you did, almost every client, supplier, and partner would say they trusted them).

Remember this because
1) if you start seeing too many posts on how a certain company is one you can trust or
2) you have to ask if you can trust the company
you probably can’t!

Companies generally start pushing “trust” when a major competitor does something particularly untrustworthy that becomes public, third party surveys paint them as trustworthy, or they need a new angle to boost sales.

Plus, f you need to ask, something is setting off your internal alarms and you won’t trust them until you figure out what that is (and they’re not going to tell you).

Either way, play it safe and look elsewhere.

You may still get burned (and I have the scars to prove it), because sh!t happens, boards make changes, investors get ruthless, and world class pathological liars could still slip through the cracks and fool everyone for years, but you decrease your chances of being burned significantly by just looking for vendors who continually do the right thing (instead of just saying they do).

Tired of All the Fake AI Experts?

Want to know how to weed them out and make them go away?

Just ask them to define these terms, off the top of their head, on the spot, without looking anything up, using any tools, or accessing any network connected devices (and definitely no Gen-AI LLM access):

  • computability
  • decidability
  • NP-completeness
  • optimization, inc. local optimization vs. global optimization
  • clustering, with at least 3 different examples
  • curve fitting
  • fourier transform
  • neural network
  • deep neural network
  • transformer
  • ontology
  • semantic analysis
  • sentiment analysis
  • boolean logic and theory of logical variables
  • automated reasoning

and they don’t define every single term mathematically precise, then tell them to f*ck 0ff because they don’t know a damn thing!

You CAN Afford to Wait for AI. But you can’t afford to wait to

  • get your data under control
  • build an infrastructure to allow for greater connectivity between apps within your enterprise and its greater ecosystem
  • update your processes
  • acquire and train the right talent with the knowledge they need to compete in the modern world
  • get digital and implement modern, current, generation technology based on best practices, proven (A)RPA ([Adaptive] Robotic Process Automation), and last-gen “AI” tech like optimization, predictive analytics (based on clustering and curve fitting), and point based neural networks with proven reliability and mathematically understood confidence where those apps are needed (and not a Gormless AI)

The reality is that you have to operate as lean and mean as possible. And

  • without good data, you can’t make good decisions
  • without good connectivity, you’re manually re-entering data across systems or missing critical external data you need to make good decisions
  • without good processes, you are inefficient and if not already, about to be circling the drain
  • without good talent, you are running on fumes at best, your ability to compete is at risk, and you can never improve
  • without modern tech, you are at a continual disadvantage and will continually fall behind

So you can’t wait to

  • institute Master Data Management (MDM)
  • enforce Open APIs in your solutions and acquire integration and orchestration solutions
  • review and modernize your processes where necessary
  • focus on acquiring, train, and retaining top talent
  • modernizing your tech to CURRENT generation proven tech, not experimental HYPE tech

BUT YOU CAN WAIT ON “GEN-AI“. It’s about getting the job done as efficiently and effectively as possible … with a low error rate and no significant risk! 99 times out of 100, you don’t need experimental “AI” to do that. Only the investors who spent millions/billions/trillionsw on unproven tech and the consultancies who need massive projects to employe bodies do … but that’s not to help you. That’s to recoup their wasted dollars. And that’s NOT your problem.

Building a Good Solution ABSOLUTELY Requires a Good RoadMap

A few weeks ago we tackled the subject of How Does a Vendor Build a GOOD Solution? and outlined seven key steps. SI received some feedback, and most of it revolved around the roadmap and how it should only look three months out!

So we have to address this insanity!

First of all, name ONE great or revolutionary technological invention that was invented with three months effort. You can’t, because there isn’t one.

Now name ONE great piece of software that solves a significant business problem that no other system that came before solved that was invented with three months effort. You can’t, because there isn’t one.

Now name ONE Billion dollar enterprise software platform that went to market with an MVP in 3 months that became a powerhouse that a large swath of businesses are using. You can’t, because there isn’t one.

All you can do in three months is a crap an app that is a piece of crap. Now, you might be able to make a big splash on the app store or in the consumer shareware market, but enterprise software is a complex piece of enterprise technology that requires years of development … and years of planning!

Secondly, remember what a roadmap actually is. It’s a graphical document that shows all of the roads you have available to you, how fast you can travel down them, and where they will take you. It’s not a detailed travel plan!

Similarly, in technology, a roadmap lists out all the things you would like to do, what it might take to get there, and what options could take you there. It is NOT a detailed functional specification or a development plan for the next three to five years (which should be the length of time you should be thinking through). (Also remember that, historically, great inventions came from research labs where the researchers were thinking three, five, and even ten years out and had years to develop groundbreaking developments!)

There are a number of reasons you need to be thinking three years out (even if your plans completely change nine months in), but the most critical reason is this:

If you plan for three months, or go for speed over quality (assuming you can always fix it later) your teams take shortcuts, build crap infrastructure, and add technical debt faster than you can ever eliminate it! (It’s almost as bad as vibe coding your way to an MVP, and then realizing you can never support an enterprise stack on it and have to go back and rebuild it from the bottom up after you’ve wasted months of effort and tens of thousands (or more) on AI credits. (Alex Turnbull gives a good summary in this LinkedIn post.)

When you start thinking about where your enterprise application might need to go, even if you choose not to go in that direction, you understand what processes you will eventually need to support and how you will need to build the foundational data model, workflow and orchestration engine, integration capabilities, internationalization support, and other core foundational features to either build that out or integrate that capability in the future. You’ll have a better idea of what you’ll need in the stack, what you’ll need for the platform, and what the best development environments for your team will be. (Having to change out any of these is very time consuming and expensive should you make a mistake early on.)

For (an easily understood) example, if you think invoice processing sucks (because you only looked at three vendors as you are too clueless to do market research, like many vendors that started during COVID because they all of a sudden realized that the business back-office should be capable of running 100% online, distributed, and remote), what else are you likely going to do after that. (Unless you’re a world leader in invoice processing technology, no one is going to buy just that!) In other words, are you going to support invoice analysis and predictive payment analytics, payment platform integration, contract and PO data extraction and matching, enhanced procurement (platform) support, etc. All of these capabilities will dictate data model, orchestration, and stack requirements.

Again, the point is not to plan out a detailed release schedule, but understand where your customers might ask you to go, where you want to go, where you want to hire a guide (to provide you with the expertise you need), and where you might want to hire a service to take your customers there (because a certain capability is best done by a specialist). This, along with constant monitoring of customer functionality uptake, customer feedback, and user forums will give you the complete picture you need to create the high level development plan for the year and the detailed functional specification for the final release of the next quarter (which might be built incrementally using agile methodology).

To put this in terms non-technical people will understand, you can’t build a twenty-story high-rise on a foundation for a two-story house. By thinking ahead, you’re building a solid foundation, and when you start building, you’re building the frame for the twenty-story high-rise that you can then build out and complete floor-by-floor once you know what the tenants you are signing on want on their floor.

By thinking at a high level years into the future, you are visualizing how you are going to fit into and evolve with the organizational ecosystem you want to sell into, and you are making good architectural decisions as you will be able to build that understanding of what you’ll need to support!

Moreover, as one commenter pointed out, and we noted above, watching how users work with the system is key! That not only helps you understand the depth and configurability of workflow process management required, the breadth of the data models that will be needed, and what systems they will want interfaces to (based on what they use before and after), but how to design a good UX based on now they work and what they are adopting! (It should be noted that designing a good UX, including a good UI, can be harder than the model and controller algorithms — which, if you need advanced analytics, optimization, and higher performance, might take a PhD to get right — because it doesn’t matter how good the application core is if no one uses it!)

Roadmaps are key. That’s how your Chief Software Architect and Chief Technology Officer build great applications. It ensures that once you select a destination, they know the route they have to navigate to get there!