Last year, while ranting about the plethora of utterly useless logo maps (which includes the Mega Map the doctor created to demonstrate the extreme futility of these maps), we also did a dive into why analyst firm 2*2s are NOT appropriate for tech selection. This is coming up again as a certain firm is really pushing All AI all-the-time and you can tell it’s about to infuse all their maps. Plus, the biggest firms are really pushing their quadrants, waves, and marketscapes, and most of these are showing the same solutions they showed last year and the year before that and the year before that and so on (going back a decade in some cases).
That, and a number of people are lamenting their lack of usefulness on LinkedIn, with one person even creating yet another logo map to highlight the “significant solutions that matter” (but we’ll save that rant for another day), so it’s time to make it clear that these maps are not appropriate (on their own) for tech selection. For example, in a discussion on my post on how your standard sourcing doesn’t work for direct, Thomas Audibert correctly states that static quadrants, in any form, do not work. (And then went on to correctly note that if you say there are, for instance, 80 sourcing solutions, it means that there are at least 20 niche (geographic, industry, customer size, …) categories of interest and that, unless they are catered within 20 different quadrants, this makes no sense to me.
And it doesn’t, because all a map can do, in the best situation, is give you a set of more-or-less comparable solutions that each serve a specific function (so you don’t end up trying to compare a Strategic Sourcing to a catalog-based e-Procurement to an Accounts Payable solution which, of course, serve three completely different functions). If it’s a good map, and by that I mean focussed on two things max, like Spend Matters Solution Map that only scores tech (on one axis) and only presents tech vs average customer scores (on the other axis), then you can use it to verify that one or two of your key requirements are met (such as the tech is solid and the customers are generally happy), but that’s it. (But if it’s a map that squishes 16 different scores into 2 dimensions, that’s useless … you don’t know what is contributing to the scores. What’s most important to you could be the lowest score in that score mish-mash number that looks above average.)
Moreover, at the end of the day, all an analyst can do that is useful is rate a vendor on one or more business independent objective dimensions that can be scored easily and, more importantly, give a customer comfort that the vendor does well on this dimension and they don’t have to worry about it in their evaluation. (For example, if a vendor does well in Spend Matters Solution Map, you know you don’t have to evaluate the underlying technical foundations, which is something most companies aren’t good at.) However, that’s not enough for a selection.
When it comes to tech, it’s important that:
- it’s solid
- it fills the need you are searching for
- it is easy to use by the majority of the users for the functions they will be doing the majority of the time
And, guess what, an analyst can only verify the first requirement. Why? An analyst doesn’t know your needs, you do. Moreover, they don’t know the TQ (technical quotient) of your users, the functions they do daily, or the processes they follow. You do. So, how can you expect an analyst to produce a map that tells you that.
But, if you’ve been paying attention, the solution to your problem is not tech. It’s process. And until you nail that, and then select the tech that matches that process, tech alone will NEVER solve your problem. NEVER.
And since analysts don’t know your business, or your
- business size, Procurement department size, maturity
- culture
- risk tolerance
- innovation level/comfort
- current processes / required processes
- customer service needs
- etc. etc. etc.
or even how these slide on a scale across different companies of different sizes across industries, there’s no way they can produce a map that tells you all of this. Or even a fraction of this.
That’s why you need an analyst or independent consultant that truly understands the solution space you are searching in, what those solutions should do, and how to help you identify the subset that is not only technically solid but is also likely to meet your business requirements. (And remember, It’s the Analyst, not the analyst firm. If the analyst hasn’t reviewed dozens of vendors in the space you are searching in that offer the type of solution you are searching for, doesn’t know the must vs. should vs. nice to have requirements, and, most importantly, doesn’t have the technical chops to validate the solution technically (which is the weakness of every non-IT / non-Engineering business department), he’s not the analyst for you!