Not long ago we noted that our space is filling up with dumb companies and that this number, at least in the view of the doctor, is likely at an all time high.
the doctor believes that your favourite vendor likely won’t be around, or at least not in it’s current form, within two years (or less), with the doctor predicting a failure rate of 20% (or more); which, while it sounds pretty significant, is actually a mild prediction compared to THE REVELATOR‘s bold prediction that 75% of companies won’t be around, or at least not in their current form, within 18 months. Wow!
Why? First of all, as highlighted in the doctor‘s revised Dumb Company article, the companies that are (finally) starting to panic (internally) are starting to make the classic mistakes that signal the beginning of the end. (Considering the marketing madness, the buzzword overload, and the hogwash still coming from the firehose, you wouldn’t know it yet, but early warning signs are starting to appear.)
Secondly, they have been, or are starting to, make the Dead Company mistakes, first highlighted by the doctor in December, 2008, as well as some scary new mistakes that weren’t as common, or that were overlooked by the doctor, sixteen years ago.
While there are a large number of mistakes, often with individual nuances, that vary from company to company, and an exhaustive list would be too long to digest (if it could even be compiled by one person), there are still a number of common mistakes that can be identified and the elimination of these, or at least an immediate course correction (as some mistakes can’t be undone) with respect to these mistakes, will go a long way to making sure that their company is not the next dead company walking. If you see these mistakes in spades as a buying organization, it’s probably best to steer clear until the ship is righted. (You don’t want to go down with a sinking ship!)
The top 12 the doctor is currently seeing are:
Too Many Assumptions, Too Few Verifications
Too many founders didn’t do their research, assumed that just because tool X they were forced to use at their last job didn’t do something then no tool did it, or assumed that because they were a buyer buying a few categories at one company in one industry they know what every buyer wants. And, thus, they know enough to design the tool that is going to take the Procurement world by storm! This is rarely the case. Especially if they only ever saw three potential solutions of the 40 to 200 that were out there (depending on the module they were looking for, see the Mega Map).
While it’s hard to tell what is in someone’s head, the words, directions (to the marketing and sales teams), and outputs (in terms of product) speak volumes. They tend to focus on how they were a buyer and know all the problems (without even asking about your problem), focus on user experience more than actual process or solution (look how easy it is for Bob to make a request on his phone and see a virtual avatar of Alice receiving it — woo hoo), and direct their marketing and sales team to sell sizzle, not steak.
A shiny exterior is more important than a modern engine
As hinted in our last point, too many founders today are too focussed on the UI and the UX, the “user experience” and not on the processes that the users actually have to do on a daily basis. As a result, while it may taste great to the eyes, it’s significantly less filling as an actual solution and leaves users wanting more, sometimes to the point where they quickly abandon the solution. As such, it doesn’t matter how quick that shiny new intake-to-orchestrate solution can be implemented if there isn’t actually a solid procurement capability backing it up that does more than allow an employee to make a request and see a shiny avatar of Alice saying “your request has been received”. If Alice can’t actually do the Procurement in tool, what good is it?
So if the “intake” demo stops with the intake, run to the hills, run for your lives! Of if when you ask them about a competitive functionality, all they talk about is the experience their solution offers, they don’t actually have deep capability.
Shiny new tech is more important than a tried-and-true methodology
At least 6 in 7 vendors have jumped on the AI-backed/AI-driven/AI-enabled/AI-enhanced/AI-powered bandwagon, even if they don’t have any AI at all and/or any AI that actually solves a real problem in a predictable, valuable fashion. Too many vendors are popping up with “intake”, which the doctor prefers to call “fake-take” solutions that, as per above, can take a request in a shiny web-based UX and then … do nothing with it, or, in the best case, act as an overpriced pay-per-view on your data!
The sad part about this situation is that a number of real, modern Procurement 2.0+ (and esp. 3.0+) applications have had “intake” built in since day one, like Vroozi that has had it since launch in 2013 and Eyvo that has had it since the mid 2010s. Even Coupa had intake support for catalog-based purchases when it launched on Procurement Independence Day in 2006 (and still does to a large extent, although the user-based pricing model does make it prohibitive for many organizations)! And when it comes to AI, the doctor has yet to see any new “AI” play offer any new capability that hasn’t existed, or been in development, since the last decade! (When the doctor did his AI in X today, tomorrow, and the day after tomorrow series for Procurement, Sourcing, Supplier Discovery, Supplier Management, and Optimization in 2018 and 2019 on Spend Matters. These are all still in the Content-Hub archives, so if you have access, check them out.) (Now, while the doctor will admit that Gen-AI can do conversational interactions better, and summarize larger bodies of documentation as it is a bigger model, that is about it … as it cannot do any task that requires basic logic or math, and thus just about any real Procurement task. Moreover, we have had semantic technology that has done a good job since the early 2010s! Sure it might have sounded a bit robotic at times, but it worked just fine.)
So if all the vendor talks about is buzzwords, find one that talks about how they solve your problem. At the end of the day, it is command line code executing on a server somewhere that solves your difficult business problems, not fancy UIs.
Over-reliance on third party tech is a sustainable business, especially if it’s (Gen-)AI
If a lot of your potential vendor’s functionality is dependent on yet another a new third party vendor (or offering that will be pulled if it causes the company to bleed money), what do you think is going to happen when it goes away? Nothing good, and that’s for certain. That’s why you want vendors who build real applications in languages supported on multiple platforms that use data stores supported by multiple vendors and cloud service providers. You don’t want a single point of external failure taking down your entire business. Especially when the third party tech has limited use (on its own) in the first place.
But way too many vendors are building these Gen-AI or intake-plus solutions first, which are totally reliant on third vendor tech that can destroy their company in an instant. And it doesn’t matter if they only build on big company tech from companies like Microsoft or Google that you know aren’t going out of business, because even these goliaths can, and will, end support for tech pretty fast if it’s not profitable. (And, if it looks like one day an application will be very profitable, cut your access to it to prevent competition with their new, inferior, in-house tech.) The fact of the matter is, they are Goliath 2.0 with full armour plating, a helmet no stone is getting through, and a legal team who will bankrupt you if you even try to fight them. So if they decide the tech is done, or at least your access to it is done, you’re done, and there’s nothing you can do. (the doctor has seen this multiple time and experienced this firsthand. And it doesn’t matter if your vendor has a signed agreement in hand, the Goliath’s legal team will find an out clause and that will be it for your vendor.)
So avoid these vendors like the plague. A vendor with great tech can still fail, but it’s not as likely to do so without a lot of early warning signs if it owns the tech and employs the people.
An innovation burst is enough, especially if it is disruptive
Another increasingly common mistake these dead companies walking make is thinking that once they have a shiny new piece of actual tech that they don’t think anyone else has (which is rarer than you think), they can slow down the pace of development and rev up marketing and sales. That’s the exact opposite of what needs to be done. If you want sustainability as a vendor, you need a big lead, not a small one that can, and will, be quickly replicated by the next startup that has the same idea and gets too much money (and is smart enough to, or lucks into, hir[e][ing] the best). Success as a vendor requires consistent product development for years, and the only reason R&D becomes a smaller percentage of the budget as time goes on is because, one the core module(s) of the product (suite) is (/are) ready for prime-time, marketing and sales spending starts increasing from 0, not because R&D spend decreases!
Make sure your potential vendor has a concrete, detailed roadmap for the next year and vision for the next three. Significant function-spanning developments take time, and vendors in it for the long haul realize that — and they start with the foundations first.
Too much investment, too soon, against an overly ambitious plan
This is one of the worst mistakes, and one we’re definitely seeing too much of recently. Too many companies getting tens, or hundreds, of millions of investment just because they are building intake-to-orchestrate or Gen-AI solutions, neither of which do anything on their own, and neither of which do anything significant without a lot of solid tech (and data) to back them up (for the use cases where they are good). In some cases, the investment is at stupid levels an there is no way the company is going to deliver on the investment to the expectations of the investors, which means that the company will likely be dropped faster than a hot potato when the coffers start running dry as a smart investment firm would rather eat a sunk cost than have an ongoing investment sink their entire fund. In the best case, they’ll be sold off to a bigger VC or PE (at a loss) who can right the sails and extract some value as part of a larger solution suite. In the worst case, the company will just be folded entirely.
So, before buying from any vendor, research their investment to sales ratio at investment time and now, and if they took 100M on 0, and still only have a handful of customers, that’s not a good sign … unless they are building to a very specific niche need with the intent to get them scooped up by a bigger player who needs to fill that hole, their chances of long term survival are slim to none.
These are just the first six mistakes we’re starting to see too often. Stay tuned for part two where we’ll go over the next six.