Monthly Archives: June 2024

Don’t Zip Through the Zip-sponsored Spend Matters authored Intake and Procurement Orchestration RFI, Part 1

… because while it looks great on the surface, in our space, looks can be deceiving and what you get may NOT be what you want. (And you’ll have to read this full series to find out if it’s good, bad, both, or neither.)

Post Edit: The summary on LinkedIn has been removed. You can read why in the Social Media Policy.  See this post for Zip Solution Coverage.

Zip issued a strong encouragement to check out their newly sponsored Intake and Orchestration RFI, authored by Spend Matters, noting that there’s nothing that will get you smart faster that checking out how this tech works under the hood (Source) because it would take the guesswork out of your evaluation process (Source) and allow you to choose the right intake and procurement orchestration with confidence (Source).

Zip should not have issued a public challenge because the doctor has a very hard time refusing them considering he has been ranting and raving against vendor RFIs for almost two decades (since not long after Procuri# started the craze back in 2006 where they issued FREE templates for e-Sourcing, Supplier Management, Contract Management, and Spend Analysis (each with their own dedicated domain to make them look independently developed, especially since they added service provider or Procurement [but NOT source to contract] logos on the sidebar). These free templates, as has been stated many times, not only made them Procuri look, good, but better than the peers you would evaluate them against, whether or not they actually were. Since then, the doctor has NEVER found an RFX in our space written/sponsored by the vendor that doesn’t favour the vendor, or even one that is actually good as a foundation for provider selection*.

In other words, the chances of Spend Matters and Zip creating the first RFI that would allow for firm-appropriate unbiased vendor selection is pretty low, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that they couldn’t (although the doctor is going into the review doubting it) or that the RFI wouldn’t have any value if used and/or referenced appropriately (either for self-education and/or a foundation for a larger, wider evaluation effort). After all, used appropriately the Spend Matters Solution Maps are highly valuable (as you know that you are evaluating vendors that are apples-to-apples on the core functionality, know that they are all technically likely to meet your needs, and can focus on all of the other requirements of the provider). However, this means that a very careful, independent, third-party evaluation is needed to analyze the efficacy of the map being handed to you.

Especially when there are a number of easily identifiable strikes right off the bat.

  • Sole Sponsored: this means that Spend Matters would have analyzed Zip (which is one of the first “intake” to “orchestrate” vendors they covered) heavily as the foundation for building their RFI (as Zip would expect every aspect of their solution to be analyzable); so while the analysts would do their best to be unbiased, some unconscious bias will creep in
  • Forrester Scoring Scale: the scoring scale is 1 – 3 – 5; presumably this was done to allow for some room for interpretation or “half” points as “whole” points, but there are three major problems with the Forrester scale
    • it has been grossly misused to evaluate tech by people who don’t understand tech (in one of their reports, a vendor was given a 5 for software architecture if it was done in house, 3 if part of it was done in house and the rest was built on top of a third party architecture, and 1 if it was done by a third party, which is, well, WTF? who does it has NOTHING to do with how good a software architecture is)
    • it presumes there is a “best” capability that cannot be beat, which is not the case if vendors are still innovating, and could only be the case at the point the RFI was written and only IF the analysts had seen every solution on the market (which is doubtful); there is a reason scales in Solution Map only defined functionality to a “4”, some vendors kept innovating and this allowed that to be captured without needing to update the Solution Map more than every two years
    • it presumes that there is enough information for average buyers to accurately score; given that even analysts needed training and clarification before they would all score Solution Map 99% the same (even though every element was very explicitly defined, first scoring passes by new analysts were often only 90% as they often needed deeper technical explanations of requirements and/or more insight on how to question vendors to get the right answer), how likely do you think it is that buyers with limited technical solution knowledge are going to score solutions the same even if they understand what the seller is offering?
  • Intake Heavy: 49% pure intake, 30% intake-slanted (requirement could be in an intake or orchestrate RFI, but very intake-slanted); 21% orchestration; while this is not bad if you are looking for an intake solution, it is bad if you are looking for an orchestration solution, which is what you should be looking for; the doctor has explained in multiple posts how intake has no value on it’s own (including a deep take in point 11 of market madness where the doctor explained that intake is just pay for view on your data [and why should you pay to access your data]); moreover, intake is NOT new as many P2P solutions (especially those that are based on or support catalogs) have had intake built in since day 1, and Zycus released the first stand-alone intake solution [for its suite] called iRequest back in 2015; and there’s no beef (and it’s always important to ask where’s the beef) … and just adding orchestration alone doesn’t create value (because if you only buy modern applications with Open APIs, you can integrate them all directly upon purchase and not have to pay yet another license and maintenance fee for yet another app)
  • Orchestration Light: while implied by the last point, this has to be called out because the only value from intake-to-orchestrate comes from going beyond just integrating standard Source-to-Pay modules at touch points and either extending into the supply chain or enterprise, adding workflow capability not previously possible across product and service life-cycles, and/or enabling data modelling and analytics not (easily) doable with current applications — there’s one element for beyond S2P (except for, of course, the ERP backbone), workflow coverage is baseline, and analytics is defined as simple “reporting” … not nearly sufficient to capture what orchestration should be and should do
  • Focused on “DOES” and not “ENABLES“: the RFI was clearly modeled after solution map which is great for allowing side-by-side comparison of solutions based on their support for certain technical functions, which may or may not be relevant for your organizational needs and does a great job of comparing how relatively advanced multiple solutions are but doesn’t tell you whether or not they will enable YOUR organization with the processes YOUR organization needs with the systems YOUR organizations uses with the interfaces YOUR people, and their TQ, can understand (and, of course, no hints at all on how to evaluate whether or not the provider can support you, custom integrate new solutions on an ongoing basis for you, be available on your working hours, support the languages of the third parties you need to work with, or culturally be a good fit — you know, all the important things when selecting a solution)

Not the best of starts, especially when it’s three-strikes-and-you’re-out in baseball, but still there could be deep educational value in the RFI itself and maybe it’s a good starting point for solution comparison (or, better yet, a Spend Matters solution map module).

So, in the next three parts of this series we will evaluate each part of the RFI: Intake, Common, and Orchestrate and then give our verdict.

# Procuri was one of the first Source-to-Contract vendors that was acquired by Ariba in 2007, and then Ariba was acquired by SAP in 2012. (Also, before the RFIs, they published an 84 page book back in 2004 on Driving Business Performance with Strategic Sourcing, edited by Randy Glasbergen. ISBN 0971859841, Library of Congress Control Number 2004112419, and ASIN B000MZKZB2 if you want to track it down.) [And yes, the implication is that the doctor would expect the ZIPpy@ Procurement Handbook to be the next publication from Zip.]

* Yes, the doctor did author the Source-to-Contract Solution maps AND the common foundation for the Source-to-Pay Solution Maps while he was at Spend Matters, but these were NOT for provider selection — the purpose was to identify which vendors were relevant to shortlist in your RFI process (which should consider considerably more than the tech, but the point was to evaluate the tech alone because that is the one thing that most Procurement departments ARE NOT equipped to properly evaluate, while providing an overview of unbiased customer ratings through an aggregate score).

@ Assuming zippy (P.1, P.2) doesn’t violate a trademark of Rainbow.

Yes, Jon. Some Analyst Firms Do Stink!

Last Saturday, Jon The Revelator penned a piece on how Going “off-map” is the key to finding the best solution providers, which he correctly said was critical because Gartner reports that 85% of all AI and ML projects fail to produce a return for the business. As per a Forbes article, the reasons often cited for the high failure rate include poor scope definition, bad training data, organizational inertia, lack of process change, mission creep and insufficient experimentation and, in the doctor‘s view, should also include inappropriate (and sometimes just bad) technology.

The Revelator asked for thoughts and, of course, the doctor was happy to oblige.

Starting off with the observation that while it is impossible to give precise numbers since companies are always starting up, merging, getting acquired, and shutting their doors in our space, statistically, if we look at the average number of logos on a module-quadrant map (about 20), and the average number of providers with that module (about 100, ranging from about 50 for true analytics to about 200 for some variant of SXM), for every provider “paying” to get that shiny dot, there are 4 going overlooked. And given that the map represents “average”, that says, statistically, 2 of those providers are going to be better.

Furthermore, maps should NEVER be used for solution selection (for the many, many reasons the doctor has been continually putting forth here on SI, heck just search for any post with “analyst” in the title over the past year). A good map can be used to discover vendors with comparable solutions, and nothing more.

The Revelator replied to this that the first thought that came to his mind was the urgency with which we buy the dots on the map without realizing that many have paid a considerable sum to get the logo spot and recounted the story of why he sold his company in 2001 after he was approached by Meta (an analyst firm eventually acquired by Gartner), in response to the successful results of his first big implementation, who said his company was on the leading edge and that they wanted to “cover” his company. The short story was that, when he said it sounded great, the Meta rep said “terrific, let’s get started right away and the next step is you sign a contract and pay the $20,000 [$36,000 today] invoice that we will send immediately and then we can begin“. Not something easy to swallow for a small company, and even less easy than today when it now costs at least 50% more (in today’s dollars) according to some of the small companies he’s talked to if they want Gartner attention. [And that’s just for basic coverage. Guaranteed inclusion on some of the big firm maps generally requires a “client” relationship that runs 150,000 or more!]

the doctor‘s response to this is that it’s still definitely a pay-to-play game with most of these firms, as per his recent posts where he noted that dozens of the smaller vendors that he talked to this year (who keep asking “so, what’s the catch?” when the doctor says he wants to cover them on SI) said they were being quoted between 50K and 70K for any sort of coverage. Wow!

Furthermore, while Duncan Jones insists it is likely just a few bad apples, those bad apples are so rotten that many of these smaller firms steadfastly believed they couldn’t even brief an analyst if they didn’t pay up (as the rep wouldn’t let them). And it wasn’t just one firm whose name the doctor heard over and over … 4 (four) different firms got over 3 (three), sometimes very angry, mentions across the two to three dozen mentions where the smaller vendor was willing to indicate which firm was quoting them 50,000 to 70,000+ or not willing to talk to them unless they signed a client agreement. (the doctor has reached out to over 100 small companies over the past year, and almost every response indicated that they expected there would be a fee for coverage based on their analyst firm interactions, and when he asked why, the majority of them said they were quoted (high) fees by one or more other firms that said they wanted to “cover” them.)

So yes, most of the smaller firms without big bank accounts aren’t making it on to these maps (because they hired people who could actually build products vs. people who could bullsh!t investors and raise the money to pay these “analyst” firms). (Especially since an analyst from at least one firm has admitted that they were only allowed to feature clients in their maps, and an analyst from another firm has admitted that they had to design the criteria for inclusion to maximize client exposure and minimize the chances of a non-client from qualifying, as they were limited in the non-clients they include in the map [to low single digits].)

And, furthermore, when you look at those vendors that did make it, The Revelator is correct in the implication that some of them can’t carry more than a tune or two (despite claiming to carry 20).

And it seems that the doctor‘s punch hit a little harder than The Revelator expected because he followed it up with a post on Monday where he asked us Is This True?!?, and of course the doctor, who already recounted his tales of rage on LinkedIn in response to his posts that asked Are Traditional Analyst and Consulting Models Outdated and/or Unethical? and Does it Matter if Analyst Firms Aren’t Entirely Pay-to-Play if the Procurement Space Thinks They Are, couldn’t let this one go (because, to be even more blunt, he doesn’t like being accused of being an unethical jackass just because he’s an analyst, because not all jackasses are unethical, and things would be different if all analysts and consultants were as honest and hardworking as a real jackass [can you say foreshadowing?]) and responded thusly:

Well, this was the first year doing his (own) reach-outs [as the client relations team did them at Spend Matters, so he really hasn’t done many since 2017] where a few companies said they wouldn’t talk to him and/or show him anything because if they weren’t being charged, then the doctor is just going to “steal their information and sell it to their competitors“, like a certain other analyst firm whose name won’t be mentioned.

Yes, the doctor is getting a lot more “what’s the catch?” than he ever did! Apparently analysts/bloggers don’t do anything out of the goodness of their hearts anymore, there’s always a price. (Even when the doctor tells them the catch is “the doctor chooses who he covers, when, and DOES NOT actively promote the piece since no one is paying for it“, some still don’t believe him (even when he follows it up with a further explanation that even if he covers you, he likely won’t cover you again for at least two years because he wants to give all innovative or underrepresented vendors a chance, and may even ignore them completely during that time, even if they reach out, because, again, they’re not a client and his goal is to give a shot to as many companies trying to offer as he can).

Also, in the doctor‘s view, this is a big reason that analyst firms need to step up and help fix the Procurement Stink, but you can guess the response he received to the following post on The Procurement Stink (and if you can’t, ask the crickets).

The Revelator concluded his question with a reference to a Jon Oliver assertion about McKinsey, a firm that bluntly stated, “We don’t learn from clients. Their standards aren’t high enough. We learn from other McKinsey partners.” and asked if this was true across the analyst and consulting space. the doctor‘s response was that the Jon Oliver assertion was representative of a different problem. The Big X consultancies are too busy sniffing their own smug to realize that, hey, sometimes their clients are smarter (and so are a few analysts as well, but the problem is not nearly as common in analyst firms as it is in Big X consulting firms).

Our problem as independent analysts who try to be fair and ethical is that a few of these big analyst firm sales reps are ruining our reputation. And the fact that these big firms don’t immediately throw out the rotting trash that these sales reps are is why some analyst firms do stink!

To this The Revelator promptly replied that as always, the doctor isn’t pulling his punches, which is true because …

we’re getting older. We don’t have the stamina to dance around all day pulling punches. Only to hit fast and hard, especially since that’s the only chance of pulling some of these young whipper-snappers out of the daze they are in as a result of the market madness and inflated investments (ridiculous 10X to 20X+ valuations were not that uncommon during COVID when everyone was looking for SaaS to take business online).

Not to mention, we’ve heard and seen it all at least twice before, probably three times on The Revelator‘s end (sorry!), and we know that there is very little that’s truly new in our space under the sun. With most companies, it’s just the new spin they manage to find every few years to bamboozle the market into thinking their solution will find considerably more value (with less functionality) than the less glitzy solution that came before (and which has already been proven to work, used correctly, at dozens of clients).

Of course, we first have to accept there is no big red easy button and that, gasp, we have to go back to actually TRAINING people on what needs to be done!

Another problem we have is that when the Big X listen to Marvin Gaye and Tammi Terrel, they hear:

“?????? ????, ???’? ?? ???????? ????
a??’? ?? ?????? ???, ???’? ?? ????? ???? ??????, ??????
??? ?? ?? ??? ???? ??? ????? ???? ????????? ? ???’?
?? ?????? ??? ????? ??? ?????? ???
s???? ?????’? ?? ?????, ???? ???? ?????? ?? ????
?? ??? ????? ?? ??? ??????”

The whole reason of their existence for a Big X firm is to continually sell you on what they know, whether it’s better or worse, because, once they have a foot in the door, you’re their cash cow … and the sooner they can convince you that you’re dependent on them, the better. Remember, they’ve stuffed their rafters with young turkeys that they need to get off the bench (or fall prey to the consulting bloodbath described by THE PROPHET in the linked article), and the best way to keep them off the bench is to make you reliant on them.

Unlike independent consultants like us (or small niche, specialist consultancies with limited resources), they don’t want to go in, do the job, deliver a result, and move on to something better (or a new project where they can create additional value for a client) … these Big X consultancies want to get in, put dozens of resources in a shared services center, and bill you 3X on them for life.

(If the doctor or The Revelator sticks with you for more than 12 to 24 months, it’s because we keep moving onto new projects that deliver new sources of value, not because we want to monitor your invoice processing for the rest of our lives, or star in the remake of “Just Shoot Me!”)

(And to those of you who told the doctor he was mean, he’d like to point out that while he was, and is, being brutally honest because that IS the modus operandi of some of the Big X consultancies, he’s not insulting anyone in particular). [For him to do that, it would require firsthand knowledge of one or more employees purposefully engaging in unethical practices.  Not just following your playbook that is well known to anyone who wants to do their research.])

This brought the reply from The Revelator that:

In another article, he discussed the fact that VP Sales and Marketing people change jobs every two to three years.

As far as The Revelator could tell, they are put in an unwinnable position of hitting unreasonable targets based on transactional numbers rather than developing relationships and solving client problems. That is not a fair position because the focus shifts from what’s working for the client to hitting quarterly targets where, in many instances, the only client success is found in the press release.

The Revelator remembers many years ago talking with a top sales rep from Oracle who said that with his company you are only as good as your last quarter. When he said good, he was really talking about job security.

Ultimately, the most powerful testimony regarding the inherent flaws of the above approach is Gartner’s recent report that 85% of all AI and ML initiatives fail.

To this the doctor could only respond:

He can’t argue that. This is one of the problems with taking VC/PE money at ridiculous valuations (of more than 5X to 6X, which is the max that one can expect to recoup in 5 (five) years at an achievable year-over-year growth rate of roughly 40% without significantly increasing price tags for no additional functionality). The problem for Sales and Marketing is they now have to now tell the market that, suddenly, their product is now worth 3X what they quoted before the company took the VC/PE money at the ridiculous multiple and that if the customer pays only 2X (for NO new functionality, FYI), the customer is getting a deal. The problem is that the investors expect their money back in a short time frame WHILE significantly bumping up overhead (on overpriced Sales and Marketing), which is not achievable unless the company can double or triple the price of what it sells. This is often just not doable even by the best of marketers or sales people, which forces them out the door on a 2 to 3 year cycle. (Because, as you noted, as soon as they manage to get a few sales at that price tag, suddenly, as the investors realize they also need to add more implementation and support personnel as well, increasing overhead further, the Sales and Marketing rep quotas go up even more and all of them will eventually break if they don’t get out and go somewhere else just before they just can’t hit the unachievable target.)

The Revelator also noted that he now makes money through a low monthly fee that includes his experience and sales expertise, and that it’s a model he first used when he started his blog because making money is not bad when it is reasonably priced in relation to the services and value being delivered, and the doctor wholeheartedly agrees

in fact, the doctor used to do that too … but good luck finding more than one or two companies these days that honestly care about reader education and not just pushing their marketing message down a target’s throat … that’s why SI sponsorships are still suspended (and will be until he finds 4 companies that are willing to return to the gold old days where education came first — which, FYI, is one of the keys to long term success).

SI sponsorships included a day of advisory every quarter and a post covering the vendor’s solution (in the doctor‘s words, not theirs), which could be updated semi-annually if warranted and a new article whenever the vendor released a new module or significant new functionality (and it was the doctor‘s call as to what significant was).

At least The Revelator can still go back to Coupa or Zycus for sponsorship … EVERY SINGLE SPONSOR SI had pre-Spend Matters (when sponsorships were suspended on SI for obvious reasons) was eventually acquired (and why they all eventually dropped off).

(Just to be clear, the doctor is NOT saying it was the SI sponsorship, or even the doctor‘s advisory that resulted in their success [although he hopes it contributed], but he is saying that companies who are willing to listen and learn from experts, and who care more about educating and helping clients then just shoving a message down their throat, tend to do very well in the long run. Very, very well.

This is something the new generation of know-it-all thirty-somethings popping up start-ups in our space every other week don’t seem to get yet and likely won’t until they have their first failure! It’s just too bad they are going to take good investors, good employees, and beta/early clients down with them when there is no need.)

The Gen AI Fallacy

For going on 7 (seven) decades, AI cult members have been telling us if they just had more computing power, they’d solve the problem of AI. For going on (seven) 7 decades, they haven’t.

They won’t as long as we don’t fundamentally understand intelligence, the brain, or what is needed to make a computer brain.

Computing will continue to get exponentially more powerful, but it’s not just a matter of more powerful computing. The first AI program had a single core to run on. Today’s AI program have 10,000 core super clusters. The first AI programmer had only his salary and elbow grease to code, and train the model. Today’s AI companies have hundreds of employees and Billions in funding and have spent 200M to train a single model … which told us we should all eat one rock per day upon release to the public. (Which shouldn’t be unexpected as the number of cores we have today powering a single model is still less than the number of neurons in a pond snail.)

Similarly, the “models” will get “better”, relatively speaking (just like deep neural nets got better over time), but if they are not 100% reliable, they can never be used in critical applications, especially when you can’t even reliably predict confidence. (Or, even worse, you can’t even have confidence the result won’t be 100% fabrication.)

When the focus was narrow machine learning/focussed applications and accepting the limitations we had, progress was slow, but it was there, was steady, and the capabilities, and solutions improved yearly.

Now the average “enterprise” solution is decreasing in quality and application, which is going to erase decades of building trust in the cloud and reliable AI.

And that’s the fallacy. Adding more cores and more data just accelerates the capacity for error, not improvement.

Even a smart Google Engineer said so. (Source)

Challenging the Data Foundation ROI Paradigm

Creactives SpA recently published a great article Challenging the ROI Paradigm: Is Calculating ROI on Data Foundation a Valid Measure, which was made even greater by the fact that they are technically a Data Foundation company!

In a nutshell, Creactives is claiming that trying to calculate direct ROI on investments in data quality itself as a standalone business case is absurd. And they are totally right. As they say, the ROI should be calculated based on the total investment in data foundation and the analytics it powers.

The explanation they give cuts straight to the point.

It is as if we demand an ROI from the construction of an industrial shed that ensures the protection of business production but is obviously not directly income-generating. ROI should be calculated based on the total investment, that is, the production machines and the shed.

In other words, there’s no ROI on Clean Data or on Analytics on their own.

And they are entirely correct — and this is true whether you are providing a data foundation for spend analysis, supplier discovery and management, or compliance. If you are not actually doing something with that data that benefits from better data and better foundations, then the ROI of the data foundation is ZERO.

Creactives is helping to bringing to light three fallacies that the doctor sees all the time in this space. (This is very brave of them considering that they are the first data foundation company to admit that their value is zero unless embedded in a process that will require other solutions.)

Fallacy #1. A data cleansing/enrichment solution on its own delivers ROI.

Fallacy #2. You need totally cleansed data before you can deploy a solution.

Fallacy #3. Conversely, you can get ROI from an analytics solution on whatever data you have.

And all of these are, as stated, false!

ROI is generated from analytics on cleansed and enriched data. And that holds true regardless of the type of analytics being performed (spend, process, compliance, risk, discovery, etc.).

And that’s okay, because is a situation where the ROI from both is often exponential, and considerably more than the sum of its parts. Especially since analytics on bad data sometimes delivers a negative return! What the analytics companies don’t tell you is that the quality of the result is fully dependent on the quality, and completeness, of the input. Garbage in, garbage out. (Unless, of course, you are using AI, in which case, especially if Gen-AI is any part of that equation, it’s garbage in, hazardous waste out.)

So compute the return on both. (And it’s easy to partition the ROI by investment. If the data foundation is 60% of the investment, it is responsible for 60% of the return, and the ROI is simply 0.6 Return/Investment.)

Then, find additional analytics-based applications that you can run on the clean data, increase the ROI exponentially (while decreasing the cost of the data foundation in the overall equation), and watch the value of the total solution package soar!

Procurement 2024 or Procurement’s Greatest Hits? McKinsey’s on the money, but … Part 4

… in some cases this is money you should have been on a decade ago!

Let’s backtrack. As we noted in Part 1, McKinsey ended Q1 by publishing a piece on Procurement 2024: The next ten CPO actions to meet today’s toughest challenges which had some great advice, but in some cases these were actions that your Procurement organization should have been taking five, if not ten years ago. And, if your organization was doing so in these cases, should be moving on to true next actions the article didn’t even address.

So, as you probably guessed, we’re in the midst of discussing each one, giving credit where credit is due (they are pretty good at strategy after all), and indicating where they missed a bit and tell you what to do next if you are already doing the actions you should have been doing years ago. And, just like we did to THE PROPHET‘s predictions, grade them. In this third instalment, we’ll tackle the next three actions, which they group under the heading of:

OPERATING MODEL OF THE FUTURE

9. Digitize end-to-end procurement processes. A-

This is yet another action that you should have been working on since the first Procurement platform hit the market over 25 years ago, but an action that you likely couldn’t have completed until recently when the introduction of orchestration platforms made the interconnection of all systems used by Procurement affordable for the average company, even when the company needed connectivity with systems in Finance, Logistics, Risk, and Supply Chain to access necessary pieces of information for Procurement to adequately do its job. (Before these systems, you needed to be a large enterprise with a huge IT budget to afford the integration work to attempt this.) Plus, the “AI” tools you need to digitize paper documents used by old-school, classify data, process contracts to identify potential issues, etc. used to be too pricey — now that seemingly every vendor has them, they are affordable to.

10. Build new capabilities for the buyer of the future. A+

Prepare the organization for Procurement’s future by investing in new abilities for advanced market research, integrated technology, and talent development. Equip procurement professionals with deep insights and tools to understand and address supply market dynamics, risks, economics, and ESG. Given how supply chains have been in constant flux since the start of COVID, with no end in sight as a result of geo-political conflict, natural events (drought in the Panamanian canal) and disasters, supply shortages, rampant cost increases, and so on, the organization is going to need every capability available today, and a few not invented yet, to survive tomorrow. Start researching, testing, and developing now … before it’s too late. (Just leave Gen-AI out of the picture!)

So, putting it all together, the grades were B, B, A, B+, A-, A, B+, A+, A-, A+. Not a bad report card.