Monthly Archives: August 2024

Proper Project Planning is Key to Procurement Project Prosperity! Part 2

In Part 1 we noted that we wrote about the importance of Project Assurance, and how it was a methodology for keeping your Supply Management Project on Track, ten years ago and that this typically ignored area of project management is becoming more important than ever. Given that the procurement technology failure rate, as well as the technology failure rate as a whole, hasn’t improved in the last decade, and is still as high as 80% (or more) depending on the study you select, that’s a problem. Especially when, for many companies, theses projects typically start in the million dollar range. (Even if the annual license is only 100K, by the time you multiply that by 3, the minimum term any vendor will give you, the annual maintenance fee by 3, and then add the implementation, integration, training, and ongoing integration maintenance costs and ongoing training costs, it’s well over 1M.)

But we also noted whereas there might have been a time when this was enough to tip the odds of success in your favour, it’s not quite enough anymore. Given the complexity of modern procurement (which hasn’t had as many complex problems to deal with simultaneously in over two decades) and modern technology (which is now AI enabled, AI backed, AI powered, AI enhanced, and or AI driven, even if it isn’t), when most organizational users are still struggling with basic technology (not enabled, backed, powered, enhanced, or driven by [fake] AI bullcr@p).

We told you we were going to dig into the project steps and help you understand what you need to do to get it as right as you can and greatly increase your odds of success. But first, there is one critical action you need to make that is common to all steps that is critical for your Procurement Project Prosperity and that is:

  • Engage an independent expert to guide you through the entire process and help where needed, including assurance.

As noted, this individual

  • cannot be an internal resource, even from a different department, as they are still subject to the internal pressures from the C-Suite (fast, cheap, etc.) that might be counter-productive to project success (that is critical for eventually obtaining the ROI you purchased the platform for in the first place)
  • cannot be a vendor representative as their only goal is to get you to buy more, or at least keep your subscription at the initial purchase level (which likely contained seats you never used, SKUs you don’t use enough to justify, and third party feeds/integrations you aren’t taking advantage of)
  • cannot be an implementation team representative, even if they are a third party consultancy, as the odds are that consultancy has a preferred partnership with the vendor and will be biased towards keeping the vendor and doing whatever is easiest (and thus most profitable for) the vendor to keep getting their implementation referrals

Now, what’s the difference between helping and pure assurance? In addition to making sure each step is accomplished effectively, this person is also guiding you through the creation of the necessary artifacts of each step to ensure success. This person is helping you define the goals, not just ensuring the goals are met. The person is simultaneously a project guide and a project evaluator, bringing the Procurement Best Practices and Technology Knowledge that your organization doesn’t have, and helping you identify the right intersection to take you forward on your journey.

And this goes well beyond just helping you write an RFP (although this is a key step, which is why the doctor has been telling you to get expert RFP help for your Procurement technology RFP for close to two decades, because a bad RFP is one of the leading causes of project failure).

This is because, as we noted ten years ago in our original Project Assurance Series (Part I, Part II, Part III, Part IV, and Part V), project success depends on more than just getting the technical specifications right. Project success also depends on getting the talent right — as it is the people who will have to use the new system. And project success also depends on getting the transition right —- if the changeover is not smooth, significant disruptions to daily operations can occur. And, equally important, they also depend on an often overlooked 4th “T” —- tracery. Organizational success depends on selecting a superior strategy and seeing it through until the desired results are achieved (or the organization changes the strategy). (And since you don’t know what you don’t know, the small cost of engaging an expert, relative to the overall project cost, will generate a return far, far greater than the technology ever will.)

Tracery, which stems from late Middle English, can be defined as a “delicate, interlacing, work of lines as in an embroidery” or, more modernly, as a “network”. Implementing a strategy requires effectively implementing all of the intersecting “threads” that are required to execute the strategy to success. If any one aspect is overlooked, the project can fail. And if you can’t even see all the threads, it should be easy to understand how most projects essentially fail as soon as they begin and why you need a master weaver if you want to beat the odds and actually succeed.

Come back for our next installment where we will dig into the six traditional project steps outlined in our original series and dive into what your independent, third party, Procurement technology project guide (who will be independent from you, your vendor, and the vendor’s third party implementation team) needs to do.

Dear Marketer On a Budget …

It’s never quantity, it’s quality.

And audience matters!

  • The majority of people who follow a celebrity aren’t following because they want pitches.
  • The majority of people who follow a major influencer aren’t following because they jive with that influencer.
  • And those that follow a minor influencer are following for a reason and are generally of a certain consumer class (based on the common reason). Don’t ask a fashion influencer for low cost apparel to sell a high end luxury watch, and in our space, don’t ask an influencer whose only use for tech is to make brainless content for followers to consume to sell an enterprise product.

These are hard truths that have been the case since even before influencers, so the following linked post from Phoebe Sophia Russell from “In the Style” (on how 150,000 on a celebrity Instagram post only produced $800 in sales) didn’t surprise me. It’s like the new startup that forks over 100K for a big bash at ISM only to come back surprised when they didn’t even manage to get a single follow up demo scheduled.

Think back to the days when Oracle, SAP and IBM (and almost no one else) used to advertise everywhere, but see almost nothing for their stadium sponsorships, airline magazine ads, etc. All it bought them was name recognition — which was important IF you could get in front of a client who’d seen your business name (repeatedly) and not your competitors (and then instinctively thought of your company as successful), but they still had to get those RFPs and meetings, which means investing in traditional sales channels that would enable that. But that’s not a strategy the vast majority of companies can afford!

SI, which has been giving away free marketing advice (including great advice from Pinky and the Brain#) since it began (because ??? ?????? has no intention of being a marketer … but still knows what works*), including this piece on Marketing 101 which appeared with the FAQ in 2007, always advocated for intelligent spending for smaller companies which focussed on publications (on & offline), events, and thought leaders who had the necessary audience, even if it was small. 100 buyers who actually want the type of products covered by the publications, events, and thought leaders is better than 100,000 individuals who have zero interest.

And the good news is that, even though many marketers during the heyday of free money would say I was off my rocker, the best marketers today pretty much agree with me, include the Marketing Maven Sarah Scudder who has teamed up with Dr. Elouise Epstein (in their DualSource Discourse podcast) to help educate you.

(Which is great since there aren’t many of us left trying to … going back to when I started, it’s just Jason Busch, Jon W. Hansen, Peter Smith, and Pete Loughlin who haven’t given up. Fortunately, we were joined by Kelly Barner and Philip Ideson of Art of Procurement and now we have David Loseby, Tom Mills, Joël Collin-Demers, and James Meads as well … )

Focus, Audience, and Education matter!

* Every single sponsor of SI before ??? ?????? joined Spend Matters in ’16 (to ’22) [and suspended sponsorships] was acquired by ’19.

# The Brain Gives Pinky a Marketing Lesson
# Where Pinky and the brain devise a plan to market their strategy

PLEASE TELL ME: Why buys research cobbled together by “researchers” who don’t have a clue as to what they’re researching?

This press release just went live yesterday:

Sourcing and Procurement Operation Software Industry Future Trends Analysis

which announced a new “Sourcing and Procurement Operation Software market” research report from Orbis that opened with obvious (that we are a pivotal sector), stated a few more obvious facts around software delivery methods (could-based, traditional ASP based), broad market sectors (business, manufacturing, education, government, etc.), and top players that include:

  • GEP SMART – Source to Pay
  • Jaggaer – Source to Pay
  • Corcentric – Source to PayMENTS
  • Coupa – business spend management, sorry, margin multiplier maker based on Source to Pay

which are in every map, quadrant, wave, logo map, etc. … so no surprise there but …

  • Precoro – Procure to Pay

which only solves half the problem

  • Servicenow – workflow management
  • Kissflow – low code app development

which can build solutions, but doesn’t offer them out of the bark

  • Vendr – SaaS marketplace

where you can buy some of them

  • ClickUp – Project Management

which is not even remotely related to S2P at all!!! And if these are the top 9 vendors, I shudder at what other totally irrelevant, non-comparable, vendors were included!

A report such as this should ONLY include vendors that offer real, and core, Source-to-Pay functionality, and only if they break down the space into segments where included vendors are actually comparable!

And it shouldn’t be hard as there are over 600 such vendors in some core area of S2P … you don’t have to include generic workflow engines, project management, buy-an-app platforms, or generic project management just to hit 25!

Reports like these give analyst firms, and analysts, a bad name!

Why Won’t They Stop?!?