Monthly Archives: June 2024

Dear Fellow Analysts: It’s Time to Step Up And Deal with the PROCUREMENT STINK!

Because if we don’t, no one else will!

What am I talking about?

As per last Wednesday’s article, PROCUREMENT STINKS and we just can’t deny it anymore. In a nutshell, and this is just the tip of the garbage heap:

  1. Case studies are ranker than expired fish in a microwave on high.
  2. Approximately 85% of companies are AI-washing everything.
  3. The Gen-AI claims that it will deliver Procurement to the enterprise are FALSE.
  4. Intake/Orchestration is totally useless on its own.
  5. Consultancies are often more in the dark than the Procurement departments they are claiming they can help.
  6. DEI is being misused to push agendas and sometimes to Do Extra-legal Initiatives,

But this isn’t even the worst of it!

THE REVELATOR recently conducted a poll on who do you trust, and the results were more than a little disturbing as far as I am concerned.

 

That’s right. Only 50% of practitioners trust analysts to help them make the right decision when selecting technology. 36% would rather a consultant, who likely has a very strong incentive to either recommend a preferred partner solution (where they are guaranteed to get the implementation contract) or the solution that requires the most implementation effort (to add months, or years, to the engagement), and, even worse, 14% would rather trust a marketer or salesperson, who gets paid for leads or sales, not for solving a customer’s problem!

As far as the doctor is concerned, anything less than 75% is appalling. While he will happily admit there are some independent consultants at smaller firms without vendor partnerships who will be truly objective and will offer valuable advice, this is not the norm at most of the larger firms that are preferred partners or implementation providers for the bigger players in our space (where the majority of consultants reside), so the fact that the consultant trust is so high is a little off-putting. However, he’s simply aghast at the fact that 14% would rather trust a salesperson or a marketer for solution advice. Frankly, this means we are definitely failing the market.

Basically, if we can’t be the unbiased experts and independent voices of reason that the Procurement practitioners can always trust for good, unbiased, advice, then what good are we?

So what can we do to regain the trust? the doctor is sad to say he’s not exactly sure and hopes that

  • some other analysts will echo the call to action to deal with the PROCUREMENT STINK,
  • analysts will collectively take the lead in cleaning it up and restoring our reputation, and
  • offer up suggestions on what we can do to make it better!

Now, while the doctor doesn’t have all the answers, he does have suggestions on where we can start.

1. Be fully transparent on whom we do and don’t include in maps and logo charts, why, and the business situation in which our recommendations are, and are not, relevant.

This is quite obvious, and most of us are getting pretty good at being very explicit about the inclusion requirements for our maps and studies, but we don’t always take the time to clarify what this means for the market and, more specifically, which types of organizations the reports and maps are targeted at, which types of organizations will get the most value, and, most importantly, which types of organizations are unlikely to get any value because they don’t fall in the size/verticals/etc. the map or report is targeting. As far as the doctoris concerned, now more than ever we need to double down and get it right on both sides of the equation — who is being included, and why AND who should, and should not, be reading the report, and why, when we release something to the market. (Like the doctor did with his mega map.)

2. Stop glamourizing hype cycles and start busting them when there is no perceivable value to Procurement.

Procurement is supposed to be about solutions that deliver enterprise value, not cool technology. Leave that to the Consumer Electronics Show. When we promote tech for the sake of tech, we’re not helping anyone. We need to promote solutions to business problems with measurable ROI, regardless of what the underlying technology is. It’s irrelevant how many vendors embrace Gen-AI, when it has yet to demonstrate even a single use case that offers value beyond traditional tech, and the majority have failed to deliver any value.

3. Stop taking our cues from vendors as to where the space is going and start leading vendors to where the space should be going.

For example, intake-to-orchestrate is the craze, vendors are popping up faster than rabbits in a carrot field, and it’s likely only a matter of time before we see a map covering the intake-to-orchestrate space. (Especially since the doctor has been led to understand that one major analyst firm is already considering such a map, and where one leads, others will follow.)

However, in the doctor‘s view, this SHOULD NOT happen. Because, as stated above, and explained in detail in our article on why PROCUREMENT STINKS, there is NO VALUE in intake/orchestrate on its own. NONE. Intake is nothing more than pay-per-view on your data and orchestrate is just pure SaaS-based middleware, and middleware is something we’ve had for decades (and the need for such is negated completely if all the applications you use have complete, open, APIs as they can then be connected directly). The only value in these offerings would be in any additional functionality they embed to enhance the value of the applications they are linking together so that 1+1=3.

It would be understandable if they all embedded additional functionality that was comparable, valuable on its own, and formed a new application category that made sense to evaluate separately. However, right now, many don’t embed sufficient functionality; those that do are, for the most part, not comparable (as they all tend to specialize in something different, such as easy self-serve Procurement, services management, statements of work, etc.); and there has been no application thereof that wasn’t designed to enhance, or, most of the time, just make existing applications accessible. A standalone map would be senseless. (Instead, the intake and orchestrate requirements that are necessary for success should be included in the definition, and measurement of, Procurement, Sourcing, Supplier Management and other existing applications that can deliver enterprise value.)

3b. Start calling vendors out on bullsh!t when they start chasing, or putting, cool tech before practical solutions with actual ROI.

Privately at first (of course), unless the vendor insists on marketing it through a bullhorn. Then we may have no choice but to publicly call them out on it. Vendors may not like it, and may get upset when we burst their tech-centric bubble, but we’re not helping anyone when we don’t. Not us, not the procurement professionals we claim to support, and definitely not the vendors if we don’t try to dissuade them from throwing good money after bad on tech that won’t solve actual problems and ultimately won’t sell once their potential clients see the lack of value that comes with the price tag. This space has always been about ROI, we need to remind vendors of that, and guide them to where the ROI is just as we guide the practitioners. We need to be helpful to both sides to mature the space.

the doctor‘s not sure it’s enough, but it’s a start, and if other analysts make an effort to figure out how to restore our reputation, maybe we’ll find the answer, provide the unparalleled value that only we can provide, and get back the trust we should have.

Thoughts?

Why Do Outsourcing and AI Go So Wrong?

In a recent post on how We Need to Hasten Onshoring and Nearshoring, Jon The Revelator was inspired to ask the following question:

even though outsourcing and AI have merit when properly implemented, why do things go so wrong?

This was after noting, in another post, that we have suffered year-by-year, decade-by-decade disappointment when 80% (and even higher) of initiatives fail to achieve the expected outcome.

Because in both cases [and this assumes the case where the organization is implementing real, classic, traditional AI for a tried-and-true use case and not modern Gen(erative) A(rtificial) I(diocy)], things have gone wrong, and sometimes terribly wrong, on a regular basis.

So, the doctor answered.

Fundamentally, there are two reasons that things consistently go wrong.

The first reason is the same reason things go so wrong when you put an accountant in charge of a major aerospace company or a lawyer in charge of a major hobby gaming company (when the first has zero understanding of aerospace engineering and the second of what games are and what fans want from them).

Like the accountant and the lawyer, they don’t understand their organizational and stakeholder/user needs!

The second major reason is that they don’t understand what these “solutions” actually do and how to properly qualify, select, and implement them. And, most importantly, what to realistically expect from them … and when.

A GPO is not a GPO is not a GPO — these Group Purchasing Organizations specialize by industry and region; and in making an impact by category and usage. They are not everything for everyone.

AI is not AI is not AI (unless it’s all Gen-AI, then it’s all bullcr@p). Until Gen-AI, the doctor was promoting ALL Advanced Sourcing Tech, including properly designed, implemented, and tested AI, because the right AI was as close to a miracle as you’ll get. (And the wrong AI will bankrupt you.) Now, any AI post 2020 is suspect to the nth degree.

Simply stated, the failures are because they all think they can press the big red easy button and throw it over the wall. But you can’t manage what you don’t understand! And until the world remembers this, these failures will continue to happen on a consistent basis.

And, as organizations continue to press that Gen-AI powered “easy” button while outsourcing more and more of their critical operations, expect to see a resurgence of the big supply chain disasters, like the ones we saw in the 90s and the 00s (including the ones which wiped out Billion $ companies). Hard to believe that only nine years ago the doctor was worried about companies relying on outdated ERPs ending up in the supply chain disaster record books, given how many of the disasters were the result of a big-bang ERP implementation. However, the risks associated with Gen-AI makes ERP risks look like training wheel risks!

As a result, it’s more critical that you select the right provider and / or the right solution if you want a decent chance of success. (The worst part of all this is that while there have been spectacular failures, most of the failures were not the result of selecting a bad provider or a bad solution, but the result of selecting the wrong provider or the wrong solution for you. (Remember, provider sales people are not incentivized to qualify clients for appropriateness, they are incentivized to sell. It’s your job to qualify them for you. In other words, even though there are bad providers and bad solutions out there, they are considerably fewer than there were in the days when Silicon Snake Oil was all the rage.) In the majority of failures, primarily those that weren’t spectacular failures, the providers were good providers with good people, but when the solution they offer is a square peg for your smaller round hole, what should be expected?

All Hail The Gruntmaster 6000!

It was more influential than you think!

The Gruntmaster 6000, first introduced in the The Name, and eventually realized by Infomercial is, more importantly, a great foundation to explain why the doctor started Sourcing Innovation and why it is still going SIX THOUSAND (6,000) published articles later (even though the GruntMaster 6000 ended up being an exercise machine with a graviton generator)! (And yes, this is the 6,000th published article on Sourcing Innovation.)

In The Name, it all starts with the team, including Dilbert, being challenged by the PHB (Pointy-Haired Boss) to come up with a new product (to replace the product that killed everyone who used it), starting with the name — which he believes is more important than whatever the product ends up being! A name that has to ultimately be approved by the CEO, who, of course, also believes that the name is the most important thing ever!

It’s an attempt to clarify, in a humorous fashion, both the absurdity of modern marketing for technology products and modern “suit” management who, when they are running a company they fundamentally don’t understand (still a big problem today, and we’ve had multiple recent examples of why accountants, bankers, and lawyers should NEVER run tech companies), over focus on details that just don’t matter.

And, more importantly, propagate the belief that all you have to do is select the “right” product, where the “right” product is obviously the one from the most successful company, because if a company is successful, the product must be good, right? And how do you identify the most successful company? The one that looks most successful, and, obviously has the most successfully sounding product name, right? Right?

WRONG! It’s the propagation of this problem into Procurement which is why Sourcing Innovation exists. The belief that you can pick a few successful companies, throw a problem over the wall, and get a good solution. And while you theoretically can, if you don’t pick the 3 best companies for you, the odds of you getting a good solution are not good. In fact, the odds of you getting a good solution are vanishingly close to zero! (That’s why at least two thirds of technology projects fail. Standish Group’s CHAOS 2020 report analyzed 50,000 global projects and reported 66% failure rate. And that’s one of the lowest reported failure rates the doctor has ever seen. Many of the reports he’s seen over the last two decades report 70% to 85% technology project failure.)

And you can’t pick good companies unless you know

  • what makes a good product
  • what makes a good company
  • … and, most importantly …
  • what you need the product to do
  • what you need the company to do

And that requires education. Continual, never-ending, education. Education that no one was giving you in the sea of (marketing) madness. That’s why Sourcing Innovation exists, and why it is still going SIX THOUSAND published articles later.

And, FYI, because the focus is on education, with the exception of a few hundred posts on products that no longer exist, the vast majority of what was written in the early days is as valid today as it was then. For example, the doctor, thinking ahead to the inevitable conclusion of outsourcing (and understanding EVERYTHING wrong with it*), has been preaching the desperate need to return to on-shoring, near-sourcing, and even home-shoring for the past fifteen (15) years! And every single one of the 101 Procurement Damnations still exists today! So feel free to jump back to the second post on Strategic Sourcing Innovation Defined published on 2006-June-10 and start reading forward. the doctor is sure you’ll learn something from almost every single post! And the best thing about going back to the beginning, you can read an hour a day every day for the next year and still not make it to 2024! (At roughly 5.8 MILLION words, and an average reading speed of 238 words per minute, the average reader will have over 406 hours of reading!)

* as he did study the history of trade as well as pre-recorded history, early history, archaeological, and anthropological methods [even though sometimes he thinks a better understanding of cryptozoology might help him understand modern business better] … and he’s even gave a presentation on the archaeology of spend analysis, as many of the best algorithms for spend analysis have their roots in the algorithms developed by mathematicians for archaeologists …

THERE ARE NO PROCUREMENT SECRETS!

And it sucks that reporters don’t know better!

This headline, repeated across over a dozen sites this week, really annoyed me:

German ex-officer convicted of handing procurement secrets to Russia

He may have handed secrets to Russia, but there were NOT Procurement secrets!

When it comes to Procurement, overall, your competitors, and their Procurement personnel, don’t know any more than you do. They don’t have access to any more information than you have access to. They don’t have secret technology. The only differences are:

  • their investment in the Procurement function
  • their willingness to learn
  • their willingness to acquire, implement, and use new Procurement technology

… but NONE of that is “secret”, and certainly not “state secret”.

(And if you still believe there are secrets, then the doctor will sell you some, starting at only $1,999 USD per secret! Bundle discounts available. Simply e-mail thedoctor at sourcinginnovation dot com) with a brief message stating how many secrets you would like, and he’ll send you a secret sharing non disclosure agreement and payment instructions.)

Yes, the officer worked in the Procurement office, and, as a result, had access to secret information as, outside of Engineering, Legal, the C-Suite, etc. the ONLY Department who has full access to corporate/state secrets is Procurement (as they need the specs), and it’s the ONLY department outside of the C-Suite that has access to organization-wide secrets.

So, yes, this practitioner had access to secrets and yes he could have handed them over to Russia, but they weren’t Procurement secrets — they were state secrets in internal documents he just happened to have access to as a result of his role.