Preamble: When the doctor started his influencer series on LinkedIn (with Top 10 Ways To Be A Procurement Influencer), one of the first comments he received was that it won’t get many likes. This was his expectation, especially considering he posted a partial summary of his final installment, One Final Piece of Advice, where he basically told wanna be influencers to find their next job sooner than later. However, that series was tame compared to this one, which definitely won’t get any likes. In fact, it is almost guaranteed to get the doctor a few more haters, but some things need to be explained. (And there’s no need to point out the obvious to him!)
Just Why Are There So Many Undifferentiated ProcureTech Startups That Still Don’t Solve My Problems?
After all, with over 666 solution providers out there, I should be in solution utopia, right?
There are three big reasons for this, they are people-centric, and they all start with F!
- Founders
- Financiers
- Fashionistas
Founders
There are many different types of founders who get into it for many different reasons, but the reality is that the majority of founders of ProcureTech fall into two categories:
Procurement Practitioner
Typically, a practitioner who was stuck in the dungeon of the Tower of Spend with outdated tools, insufficient support, a crushing workload, a belief there has to be a better way, and enough will to quit and try to find it.
Tech Guru
Typically, a tech guru who invented a great new piece of tech which they think will revolutionize the Procurement space or has a history of “transforming” different back-office areas and believe that, if they tackle Procurement, they can solve it too.
But they both have one thing in common:
They don’t know the space. They don’t know the terminology, the vendors, the solutions (beyond the antiquated ones they used), or the unsolved problems (as they haven’t even looked beyond the basic problems that their tech didn’t solve). They Don’t Know. And it’s hard to build a good solution when you don’t know. When you don’t know what your competition does (because you don’t even know who your competition is). When you don’t know what problems your competition is not solving (and what you should be building). And you don’t know what your target customers would pay the most for, now, without having to go through a year-long sales cycle. This holds true for both of these categories of founders.
Let’s take practitioners. They don’t know the terminology, think it’s still purchasing, and don’t know how to do proper research. They’ll do a few Google searches, find a few mass market simple finance payment platforms (such as ramp.com for billpay, airbase, etc.), think they’ve found everything, and start designing their solution. They’ll add a few additional features, basic e-Procurment/catalog support, maybe an RFP, and think they have the best Procurement solution ever designed and run with it. Or, stuck using spreadsheets and email for RFPs, design a simplistic RFP solution, add in some Gen-AI to auto generate requirements from spec sheets and auto-parse RFP responses, and think they’ve revolutionized strategic sourcing.
the doctor is not being melodramatic here. Having analyzed over 500 solutions in his career as an (independent) analyst, he’s talked to well over 500 companies, and asked quite a few of them how they started, especially when he was doing due diligence projects. And when the company was founded by a practitioner, this was the story all too often — that they started the company because the solution they had wasn’t doing the job, the 2 or 3 solutions they looked at (which weren’t at all relevant) weren’t doing the job either, and they believed the market needed a better one. Not knowing the market (beyond maybe what they saw in the odd Gartner or Forrester report), they believed there were next to no modern, affordable solutions for small-to-midsized companies that did what they believed needed to be built, so set out to build one. The good news is that they usually designed a decent solution (as they started with great intentions and built something they felt they could use). The bad news, there are twenty others that more or less do the same thing (already existing and designed by a couple dozen other founders who had more or less the same idea before them or at the same time around the world) and it’s hard to get the message out.
Then there are the tech gurus, who believe there is no modern tech in Procurement, and that the optimization, analytics, automation, and, today, AI they can bring will revolutionize our space! That all the current solutions are missing is modern tech, and if you just inject a bit of it, miracles will happen. This group of founders typically builds really cool analytics-based apps, but tends to miss a lot of the basics or ignore the 80% of the workload an average Practitioner does on a day to day basis, either because they assume the existing platforms do it well (and the existing platforms usually don’t do it well enough) or because it’s not cool. They tend to build better tech but worse solutions.
Short story is that, the majority of the time, neither of these groups do proper research before they start, or when they launch. Not only into competitors, but into the analyst firms (beyond Gartner, Forrester, and IDC), the professional organizations, or the independent experts who they could ask for advice and help. Research that could help them create a solution that checks all the base boxes, tackles some of the thornier problems, and that actually does something different from their competition.
And if this was the worst of it, the situation would not be so bad. It would barely be a problem. The worst of it is that many of these founders not only believe they know everything they need to know about how to build a great solution, but also on how to market and sell it, package and deploy it, build, and run, a company around it. But they don’t. Sometimes, not even close.
And even worse, they won’t admit it. They won’t look for the help they need, and, even worse, they won’t accept it if you offer, even if you offer to help them for free! Some will even get very defensive, double insist they know everything they need to know, and cut off communication. (Fortunately, this particular situation only happens a small percentage of the time. But still.) This is the problem. Not all founders have this level of ego, but some do.
the doctor has direct and indirect evidence for and (personal) experience with the situations described above. Even when the doctor has tried to help indirectly, such help has been ignored. There’s a reason that the doctor wrote a series on Ten Best Practices for (Software) Vendors, a series on iZombie, and two series on Dumb, Dead, and Smart Companies. To politely, less politely, and when they still wouldn’t take the hint, bluntly tell them what they needed to know in the hopes that, since they didn’t have to admit to anyone they didn’t know everything, they would heed some sound advice and not join the ranks of the vast majority of their peers, which, over time, eventually disappear. Having followed this space for over two decades, one thing the doctor knows is 90% (or more) of companies WILL disappear. Not the typical 70% that the statistics tell you for startups. 90%! The lucky will be acquired on terms they can accept, the survivors will be acquired on terms that a decent percentage of their staff continue to be employed, and the rest will just disappear. And the companies with great solutions WILL NOT be spared. Success requires a lot more than a great solution.
The majority of founders just aren’t up to the task. And that would be totally fine if they’d admit it, because not everyone has the skills it requires to grow and run a company, but anyone with the skills to found one obviously has a valuable set of skills the startup still needs, and there’s nothing wrong with stepping back to the COO, CTO, CSO, or CRO role you’re best at, especially if it’s for the greater good. But with a number of these founders, ego gets in the way. But they aren’t the only problem!