Author Archives: thedoctor

The Lack of Adoption of Analytics is NOT Complicated!

According to THE PROPHET, the reason that we’ve never seen a breakout $100M+ pure-play (spend) analytics vendor is it’s complicated. (Source: LinkedIn)

But the reality is that it’s really not.

First of all, approximately one third of all multi-nationals are headquartered in the US. In other words, one third of global enterprise is based out of the US, where the strategic decisions are made. Let’s say that again, one third!

Secondly, and this is the real explanation, in our age of participation trophies and only focusing on the positive (when there really isn’t any), no one is willing to state the truth, and that is most of the employees responsible for strategic [spend] analysis are just too math stupid.

Analytics, at its core, requires good mathematics skills and, with traditional analytics applications, good computer skills.

However, the US, where many multi-nationals are based, consistently ranks in the lower part of the OECD international rankings and is currently 34th in the PISA [out of 79 scored countries] (with an average numeracy score of 249, below the TOTAL OECD average of 263, with over 1/3 of its adult population at level 1! This means they can’t even do basic arithmetic and problem solving [or calculate a tip FFS, but that does explain why they believed their administration when they lied and said other countries pay the tariffs] — and that’s the average business employee in the US, since anyone with a level 2 on the OECD can likely fake it in a STEM career in the US.

As for THE PROPHET‘s reasons as to why Spend Analysis has consistently underperformed the hype:

  • While 3/4 of solutions have always been reporting in drag, I’ve been highlighting at least a dozen Best of Breed solutions consistently for the past decade. They have existed for the past 20 years, you just had to look (and understand what to look for. But this site did a great job of helping you with that!)
  • Yes, scale came at the cost of dumbing down the UX (for the US market in particular)!
  • Unfortunately there is no faster way to die as a Spend Analysis vendor then to get scooped up by a (mega) suite or a Big X Comsultancy.
  • Actually, the analytics and optimization is not powerful or complex enough in most solutions. Again, the problem is that the vendor didn’t add incremental levels of simplification (i.e. dumbing down) so each user could take advantage of it at their mathematical (in)competency level.

But the real reason, as hinted above, is that employees resisted these advanced spend analytics solutions because they knew they didn’t have the mathematical skills to use them. (Which the US Education System should be blamed for [and why it should be fixed, not dismantled], not the employees, unless those employees went to University and chose not to take math courses to try and make up for the failings of the public education system they were subjected to.)

As for THE PROPHET‘s signals that the times they are a changin’:

  1. Good + Cheap = Dangerous
    Faster? Check! Cheaper? Check! Smarter? Well … Ask Woody!
  2. Analytics is Merging with Execution
    This is key for adoption of analytics — do it when you need it and apply the findings right away.
  3. Intake, Orchestration and Agentic Tech
    I guess I have to say it again!
    ????? ????????????? ?? ???????? ??? ??? ??????? ????!
    When what we really need is a Revenge of the Nerds! (If the USA even has any left!)

However, the real reason that we may finally be entering a new era in analytics is the following:

4. Most companies are trying to stave off bankruptcies as a result of US trade, market, etc. decisions that have already bankrupted many SMEs and they now realize that analytics is a key part of that solution. You can’t optimize spend you don’t understand, or understand the impact of a sudden 145% increase in tariffs if you don’t understand how much you are sourcing from the country in question.

CLM is Dead! Long Live CLM!

Last month THE PROPHET ran a RIP post for CLM over on LinkedIn where he heralded the demise of CLM.

Which is coming fast and furious for CLM 1.0 and CLM 2.0 because, as we’ve said before, most current CLM solutions are nothing more than a glorified document repository / barebones CMS with a bit of linguistic rebranding, a few customized meta-data fields, maybe a bit of versioning support, and if you’re super lucky, some integrated e-Signature support.

As for the prophet’s suggestions, most of them won’t happen.

CLM absorbed into I2O?

Considering most I2O (Intake to Orchestrate) players still haven’t absorbed a fleshed out working Source to Pay model … not likely.

CLM goes vertical?

The whole point of CLM is horizontal — to get a grip on all of your contracts, not just a subset of them!

Agentic Solutions?

I like my contracts the way I like my maps: ACCURATE!

The best “AI” can do is enhance the productivity you get from a (very) small legal team … it CAN NOT replace it!

GPOs?

Standard terms around pricing DOES NOT satisfy geographic requirements which vary on levels of regulation, compliance, etc.

Clause based?

Ask Icertis and especially Exari how well that worked out for them …

Every other suggestion

Maybe … but all of this is trickier than THE PROPHET lets on!

The reason that CLM doesn’t work, as we noted above, is that the majority of “CLM” solutions on the market are NOT CLM at all. They are glorified repositories with some authoring and e-Signature support … not at all what an organization needs.

An organization needs “lifecycle” management. That’s a heck of a lot more than just drafting, redlining, signing, and sticking in a repository. That’s because contract “lifecycle” management really starts when the contract is signed (whereas most platforms seem to think it ends when the contract is signed).

It’s about automatically extracting the obligations, indexing them, assigning them, tracking them, and making sure they get done.

It’s about extracting the milestones and deliverables, as well as those obligations, and wrapping them in a project plan, assigning the resources, assigning the supervisory chain, tracking them, making sure they get done, and making sure all requirements are met.

It’s about extracting the SKUS, price tables, rate cards, and pushing them into the Procurement systems to allow those systems to perform the right m-way matches and make sure nothing is paid out that wasn’t agreed to. It’s about pulling in the paid invoices for tracking purposes and allowing the contract/relationship managers to track total contract fulfillment.

It’s about ensuring that the right parties are notified when a contract is coming up for renewal, have all the information necessary to make the decision on termination, renegotiation, or allow an evergreen renewal.

And about a whole lot more where VALUE is concerned. Just check out what The Maverick has to say over on Spend Matters.

Accept It! You ARE Selecting Obsolete Tech.

But that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

In a recent LinkedIn article, Joel said that digital procurement is like a pie eating contest, and while we’re not sure we agree, he made one valid point:

The system you select is already heading toward obsolescence the moment you go live.

But it’s worse than that!

1) It’s heading toward obsolescence from the minute the implementation starts … you have no idea the technical debt in the systems you are being sold today from the build fast, scale faster, fix it later mentality infused by VCs and most PE firms!

2) It was probably obsolete when you selected it, especially if you chose a vendor who has been leading the same Gartner and Forrester maps for 10 years with no significant changes to their product or platform!

3) Even worse, chances are that the process you digitized makes you outdated anyways and keeps you that way — digitization is the best time for identifying not how things work, but the way they should work to maximize efficiency and minimize risk (and that’s not, as we continually point out, jumping on the Gen AI / Agentric AI bandwagon and being blinded by the hype).

4) Moreover, you really shouldn’t need different channels (i.e. completely different apps) to source, just different workflows and interfaces, but since most providers don’t do more than one category (among indirect, direct, services, capex projects, etc.), you likely need MORE apps. Moreover, few suites have more than one or two modules that are truly best of breed (despite their claims), so if you don’t plan for the constant upgrades and bolts ons … well … you won’t be ready when you have to select and implement one quick, and then you’ll have even more obsolescence than you planned for.

That doesn’t mean that you should give up on modern tech because it’s all obsolete, because it’s not, and the good vendors recognize this and continually update their tech to minimize the obsolescence. It does mean that you need to be very careful when selecting your tech to find a solution that has minimal technical debt, is beyond where you are at today with respect to the processes it supports, and is being continually enhanced by the vendor. If the vendor offers a truly best of breed solution, is beyond where you are today, and has a track record of keeping up with best practices, and best tech, it’s likely a good vendor.

Especially if the tech today is considerably enhanced against the tech it had two to three years ago (which you should be able to determine by looking up old demo videos, articles, independent reviews, etc.).

However, if you can’t tell any difference between the (mega) suite tech being pushed at you today vs. what the (mega) suite tech were advertising five years ago, then you should probably stay away. Far, Far Away.

Why Are You Still Buying That Fancy New Piece of Software That

  • Could Get You Sued?
  • Increases The Chance You Will Be Hacked!
  • Could Result in a 100 Million Processing Error?
  • Could Shut Down Your Organization’s Systems for Days!
  • Helps Your Employees Commit Fraud?

If someone told you this when evaluating a piece of software, and asked if you wanted to buy it, I’m sure the vast majority of you would say HELL NO!

In which case I want you to please tell me, why are you all still riding the AI Hype Train, Buying, and Using Gen-AI everywhere?

It has already resulted in lawsuits and losses!
The Air Canada lawsuit over the Gen-AI chatbot is just one notable well publicized example.

AI systems are AI coded, and AI code has a much greater security risk
as it generates code using training repositories that contain large amounts of untested, unverified, and high risk code — generating code so full of security holes it’s a hacker’s dream! (See this great piece on the ACM on The Drunken Plagiarists.)

AI systems negotiate on the data they have
and with a single decimal point error and you could be paying 10X what you need to. Not to mention, they don’t always translate right. Remember, the Experimental AI DOGE used claimed an 8 Billion savings on an 8 Million contract!

Bad data generated by an AI system and fed into a legacy system with poor data validity checks can shut it down.
Plus, Gen-AI can also push out bad updates faster than any human can and you can easily have your own Crosslake situation!

Now it’s being used by employees to generate fake receipts
that look so real that, if the employee does a few seconds of research (to get the restaurant info, current menu prices, tax code, etc.), you can’t distinguish the generated image from the real thing. And, before you say “Ramp solves this”, well, it only does if the employee is lazy (which, let’s face it, is human nature, so you’ll catch about 90% of it). But what happens when a user strips the meta data which, FYI, can be as easy as taking a picture of the picture … oops! (And if you’re a hacker, running it through a meta data stripper/replacement routine is even easier as you’re just hotkeying a background task.)

AI is good. Gen-AI has its [limited] uses. But unrestricted and unhinged mass adoption of untested, unverified AI for inappropriate uses is bad. So why do you keep doing it?

Especially since it’s now proven it’s worse for you than some illegal drugs! (Source)

Features ARE NOT Applications; But Applications Require Features!

THE PROPHET recently asked What Procurement Tech Product Categories Were Really Just Features All Along? Which is a great question, except he cheated.

He cheated with the first 5!

  • Supplier performance management
  • Supplier quality management
  • Supplier information management / supplier master data management
  • Supplier diversity
  • Supplier risk management (not supply chain risk!)

We’ve known for years it should be one Supplier 360 solution! (Even though no one offers that when you consider all of the elements that should be there. Heck, none of them even offer the 10 basic CORNED QUIP requirements … in fact, good luck finding a solution that offers 5 of those requirements among the 100+ supplier management solutions).

He you cheated again with the next 3!

  • Should cost / cost modeling (for procurement, not design engineers)
  • RFX and reverse auctions (when not bundled with broader capabilities or services)
  • Sourcing optimization

We’ve also known for yours it should be cost-model and optimization backed sourcing (auction, RFX, hybrid, single source negotiation, etc.) … otherwise, it’s an incomplete solution. But only a fraction of the 80+ sourcing platforms offer true optimization (less than 10) and fewer still do extensive cost modelling. (Note that we are focussed on modelling, not cost estimation — that requires data, and that can, and probably should, be a third party data feed.)

And he was wrong on the last front.

Real Spend Analytics should be standalone. Wrapping restricts it! The modules you use should provide all the specific views you need, but the reason that spend analysis quickly becomes shelfware in most organizations today is the same reason it became shelfware 20 years ago … once you exhaust the limits of the interface its wrapped in, it becomes useless. Go back to the series Eric and I wrote 18 years ago (which you can since Sourcing Innovation didn’t delete everything more than a decade old when it had to change servers in 2024, unlike Spend Matters when it did its site upgrade in 2023).

But Very, Very right in that features are not applications!

And very, very right in that too many start-ups are launching today as features (which will only survive if acquired and rolled up into existing applications and platforms), and not solutions. While apps dominate the consumer world, in business there is not always an app for that, and, frankly, there shouldn’t be. This focus on point-based apps is ridiculous. It’s not features, it’s functions. It’s not apps, it’s platforms. It’s not orchestration (and definitely not spend orchestration), it’s ecosystems!

Recent stats, such as those published by Spendesk put the average number of apps a business uses at 371, with an average of 253 for SMBs and 473 for enterprise firms. WHAT. THE. F6CK? This is insane. How many departments does an average organization have? Less than 10. How many key functional areas? Less than 12. Often less than 10! How many core tasks in each function? Usually less than 6. That says, in the worst case, an enterprise might have 72 distinct critical tasks which might need their own application (but probably not). This says that SMBs have at least 3 times the app they should have, mid-size organizations at least 5 times, and enterprises at least 7 times. That is insane! No wonder there are so many carbon copy SaaS optimizers (as we covered in our piece on sacred cows), because if you have that many SaaS apps, you have features, not applications. And you need to replace sets of these with functional applications that solve your core problems.

(And if you want to know how to prevent app sprawl, before buying yet-another-app, ask yourself “is this supporting a function that should be done on its own, or just a task that should be part of an existing function” … if the latter, it’s a feature, not an application, and if the application it should be part of does not have an upgrade/module that supports the task, then you have the wrong application and it’s time to replace it, not pointlessly extend the ecosystem!)