Yesterday, in part 3, we provided an example where a graphic could get everything right, but still miss a core issue, and that issue was that while they might be a good half a dozen alternatives to the RFP, most procurement departments and professionals just aren’t ready for them. That makes the graphic totally useless for most Procurement practitioners in average Procurement departments.

Yesterday we discussed the alternatives presented by Tanya Wade. But Tom Mills also discussed the issue, and even though we already discussed one of his graphics this week, we like him so much we can’t leave him out of this important issue.

Tom’s graphic was about how to write an RFP. And it is great. Actually, like Tanya’s graphic, it’s truly fantastic. But it has the same problem as Tanya’s … it ignores the underlying issue … that Procurement departments often aren’t capable even with step-by-step instructions.

Let’s take Tom’s 6 steps:

• determine the business needs: it’s not just determining what the business needs, but what fulfills that need … what the core requirements are, the detailed specifications that are required, the utilization requirements, etc. … all of which requires extremely deep technical or process knowledge that Procurement doesn’t possess
• introduce your business: long winded introductions don’t always provide clarity, especially since most companies will puff up their business description, mission, and values with marketing puff that will distract from the core goals and objectives … which is where the RFP needs to start to get the organization on the right track
• project scope and budget: the scope is critical, but you should allow the suppliers to suggest the phases because if you lock them into an inappropriate or inefficient plan you created due to your lack of expertise, you won’t get the best quote; also, it’s not appropriate to suggest a budget on the first contact; the best approach is to precede the RFP with an RFI where you collect basic information on the supplier, their capabilities, and their typical proposal range so you can invite the right suppliers to the full RFP in a budget range that is both appropriate and that you are prepared to pay
• selection criteria: this is dead on … but it has to be right, which means the Procurement department has to be on the same page as the organizational end-user because they can’t shift the criteria and process later or they’ll risk losing credibility
• submission requirements and deadline: this needs to be super clear and the requirements should be well thought out and set in stone because, if you change them, you’ll lose credibility — but if you are looking for a custom solution, you need to be willing to extend the deadline for all parties if a supplier can make a reasonably grounded request (where they clearly explain why they need more time and educate you in the process)
• check the RFP: more specifically, have key stakeholders check … overlooking key requirements will waste everyone’s time …

The reality is that while many Procurement departments don’t know any methods beyond the RFP and e-Auction, they don’t know the process they should be following … and that’s why they can’t write a good RFP, even when they get a great template like Tom’s that tells them what to do step by step — they don’t always have the core knowledge to execute — and that goes beyond Procurement knowledge into deep organizational product and service knowledge and an understanding of who needs to be involved.

n other words, even when the simplified graphic is right, it’s still wrong when the typical Procurement department is not mature enough to implement any of it.

And remember to follow Tom Mills and his Procure Bites for practical procurement proverbs (unless you prefer the pompous pontifications of LinkedIn).

Unlike rock and roll, RFPs are noise pollution, but RFPs ain’t gonna die.

Today we’re tackling a different type of graphic. In this case it’s not one that oversimplifies, but one that misses the core issue — an utter lack of Procurement maturity in the average organization.

This is a case where we don’t have any real problems with the graphic, it’s theoretically correct, but problems with the underlying assumptions, which ignore the fact that most Procurement departments are not ready.

In the graphic in question, Tanya Wade presents 8 valid alternatives to the RFP which all organizations should be aware of.

But here’s the thing, most Procurement departments, to this day, are immature and can barely do basic RFPs and e-Auctions. They have primitive, last generation (if not first generation) sourcing and procurement platforms, and their knowledge puts them on par with the Island of Misfit Toys. They aren’t ready for anything else.

Let’s take Tanya’s suggestions one-by-one.

• Intake-Orchestration (I2O): few organizations have this, and those that claim to just have a software solution from a third party and accept the third party’s definition blindly don’t understand what true I2O really is — because intake isn’t just software, it’s process — and without a good understanding of the process the organization needs and an effort to incorporate that process into the acquired software, I20 doesn’t work (at all)
• Guided Buying: you not only need solutions that support it, but the knowledge to configure them properly so that the end users can self-serve
• Dynamic Markets and Frameworks: the majority of Procurement organizations are not sophisticated enough to handle dynamic markets and frameworks, this has to be done by a third party which requires the use of a Consortium, and while once popular, many of those have disappeared over the last two decades
• Paid Proof of Value: this is great in theory, but not many vendors will do this in practice — they want a sale, not a cost-neutral pilot — and if you won’t guarantee a sale upon success, even those that will consider it won’t do it
• Supplier Discovery Platforms: this is about the only platform the average organization is more-or-less able to use, and the -less part is that while they can use it, they can’t always do the verifications that the platform can’t and will sometimes invite inappropriate suppliers to the RFP and won’t realize it until they go through a full detailed RFP and a product verification, which could waste weeks or months of their time
• Benchmark-Led Renewal: Procurement organizations need external data and external guidance to create benchmarks, and then need guidance on how to interpret them and negotiate on them; and they don’t know where to get this data and how to identify the experts to guide them or negotiate on their behalf (or even find potential help in the first place)
• Problem Statements: i.e. CrowdSourcing — this was supposed to change Procurement two decades ago, and that was the last time we really heard of it …
• AI-Assisted Market Scan: for most procurement departments, this is asking chat, j’ai pété or clod to identify products, services, and suppliers; match to requirements; and make a recommendation — which will result in the procurement regularly getting a quote for the perfect product from a fake supplier that doesn’t exist because these tools hallucinate regularly

In other words, even when the simplified graphic is right, it’s still wrong when the typical Procurement department is not mature enough to implement any of it. Without an understanding of readiness, even the right path is not one an organization can walk down.

Follow Tanya Wade over on The Procurement Blueprint.