This article was inspired by the same LinkedIn Article by Gaurav Sharma that inspired my last article on We Need Better Events!

Basically, Gaurav posted the following:

My Buyer’s mindset is bugging me on this point!

The average cost of a CPO 3-4 day business trip on a conference: USD 10k at a minimum (Conference tickets, Business Class travel, stays, network lunch, etc).

If 70 Smart CPOs can pool this sunk cost into an investment pool, it can become a seed investment for a Procurement tech startup. Advantages?

• Instead of just “talking” about Ideas at a conference, you can be part of a “builder community.”
• Own the Equity.
• Your own customized solution; hence, your Opex will be reduced by getting rid of your dated tech stack!
• You still get networking benefits!

And he was right about how much is wasted on many of these events, but, as I pointed out, it’s peanuts to what is wasted by vendors to attend just one 2 to 3 day big procurement event and get lost in a sea madness.

But if we held better events, as I discussed in my last article, and saved a lot of money, then the question of what we do with it becomes valid. Unfortunately, CPO-led funds are not the answer. Why? As I pointed out in my comment(s):

1. You’ll never find 70 CPOs who (think they) have the same problem; sometimes it’s hard to find just 7!
2. CPOs are definitely NOT CTOs – they have no idea what it takes to build a product!
3. … many are not founders either – they have no idea what it takes to build a company! (And when many try, they don’t do so well … that’s why many of the 666 companies on the mega-map won’t be around in a few years, going the way of many, many companies before. (See SI’s historical vendor day reprise and count how many of those are left … extrapolate that % and it’s about accurate for survival rates beyond a few years.)
4. Many CPOs need to learn, and startups need to be taught what they need to do, especially since, right now, we have too many vendor offerings and most don’t solve the right problems. (Again, see the Mega Map.)
5. Even if you get a MVP out of that 700K (not likely), you’ll need a next round to make a real enterprise grade product, and then another round to grow the company enough to support it across those 70 organizations.

And this brings us to the funding issue. One thing that Gaurav got right is his implication that current funding sources aren’t always doing the job we need done. Right now, most (Procure)Tech funds come from:

1. PE funds that only back growing, successful companies that the PE fund thinks they can grow and charge more for (or increase profits by reducing the operating expenses, scaling back on R&D, and potentially running the company into the ground over the long term)
2. VC funds that play the numbers game (invest equally in 10 potential winners betting 1 will be a unicorn, 3 will be successful, 4 more will fail but be salvageable for the tech team and 2 will be a write off completely covered by the unicorn win)
3. Angels that follow their fancy

And no funds come with a purpose to solve a particular business or technology problem. So maybe we need to follow the charity / endowment model in education / the public sector and establish

d. “Startup Funds” that

1. identify common problems that need to be solved and create a fund for each problem
2. pool money from companies that want those problems solved into each fund
3. look to invest that seed money in a startup once the fund reaches a certain value (1M+) and the right startup is identified with a plan that can create an MVP (that can be shopped to VCs or bought by beta companies) for that investment level

Then CPOs, and even tech companies, with a similar need can pool their money towards a certain goal.

Thoughts?