Category Archives: Knowledge Management

Dear Fellow Analysts: It’s Time to Step Up And Deal with the PROCUREMENT STINK!

Because if we don’t, no one else will!

What am I talking about?

As per last Wednesday’s article, PROCUREMENT STINKS and we just can’t deny it anymore. In a nutshell, and this is just the tip of the garbage heap:

  1. Case studies are ranker than expired fish in a microwave on high.
  2. Approximately 85% of companies are AI-washing everything.
  3. The Gen-AI claims that it will deliver Procurement to the enterprise are FALSE.
  4. Intake/Orchestration is totally useless on its own.
  5. Consultancies are often more in the dark than the Procurement departments they are claiming they can help.
  6. DEI is being misused to push agendas and sometimes to Do Extra-legal Initiatives,

But this isn’t even the worst of it!

THE REVELATOR recently conducted a poll on who do you trust, and the results were more than a little disturbing as far as I am concerned.

 

That’s right. Only 50% of practitioners trust analysts to help them make the right decision when selecting technology. 36% would rather a consultant, who likely has a very strong incentive to either recommend a preferred partner solution (where they are guaranteed to get the implementation contract) or the solution that requires the most implementation effort (to add months, or years, to the engagement), and, even worse, 14% would rather trust a marketer or salesperson, who gets paid for leads or sales, not for solving a customer’s problem!

As far as the doctor is concerned, anything less than 75% is appalling. While he will happily admit there are some independent consultants at smaller firms without vendor partnerships who will be truly objective and will offer valuable advice, this is not the norm at most of the larger firms that are preferred partners or implementation providers for the bigger players in our space (where the majority of consultants reside), so the fact that the consultant trust is so high is a little off-putting. However, he’s simply aghast at the fact that 14% would rather trust a salesperson or a marketer for solution advice. Frankly, this means we are definitely failing the market.

Basically, if we can’t be the unbiased experts and independent voices of reason that the Procurement practitioners can always trust for good, unbiased, advice, then what good are we?

So what can we do to regain the trust? the doctor is sad to say he’s not exactly sure and hopes that

  • some other analysts will echo the call to action to deal with the PROCUREMENT STINK,
  • analysts will collectively take the lead in cleaning it up and restoring our reputation, and
  • offer up suggestions on what we can do to make it better!

Now, while the doctor doesn’t have all the answers, he does have suggestions on where we can start.

1. Be fully transparent on whom we do and don’t include in maps and logo charts, why, and the business situation in which our recommendations are, and are not, relevant.

This is quite obvious, and most of us are getting pretty good at being very explicit about the inclusion requirements for our maps and studies, but we don’t always take the time to clarify what this means for the market and, more specifically, which types of organizations the reports and maps are targeted at, which types of organizations will get the most value, and, most importantly, which types of organizations are unlikely to get any value because they don’t fall in the size/verticals/etc. the map or report is targeting. As far as the doctoris concerned, now more than ever we need to double down and get it right on both sides of the equation — who is being included, and why AND who should, and should not, be reading the report, and why, when we release something to the market. (Like the doctor did with his mega map.)

2. Stop glamourizing hype cycles and start busting them when there is no perceivable value to Procurement.

Procurement is supposed to be about solutions that deliver enterprise value, not cool technology. Leave that to the Consumer Electronics Show. When we promote tech for the sake of tech, we’re not helping anyone. We need to promote solutions to business problems with measurable ROI, regardless of what the underlying technology is. It’s irrelevant how many vendors embrace Gen-AI, when it has yet to demonstrate even a single use case that offers value beyond traditional tech, and the majority have failed to deliver any value.

3. Stop taking our cues from vendors as to where the space is going and start leading vendors to where the space should be going.

For example, intake-to-orchestrate is the craze, vendors are popping up faster than rabbits in a carrot field, and it’s likely only a matter of time before we see a map covering the intake-to-orchestrate space. (Especially since the doctor has been led to understand that one major analyst firm is already considering such a map, and where one leads, others will follow.)

However, in the doctor‘s view, this SHOULD NOT happen. Because, as stated above, and explained in detail in our article on why PROCUREMENT STINKS, there is NO VALUE in intake/orchestrate on its own. NONE. Intake is nothing more than pay-per-view on your data and orchestrate is just pure SaaS-based middleware, and middleware is something we’ve had for decades (and the need for such is negated completely if all the applications you use have complete, open, APIs as they can then be connected directly). The only value in these offerings would be in any additional functionality they embed to enhance the value of the applications they are linking together so that 1+1=3.

It would be understandable if they all embedded additional functionality that was comparable, valuable on its own, and formed a new application category that made sense to evaluate separately. However, right now, many don’t embed sufficient functionality; those that do are, for the most part, not comparable (as they all tend to specialize in something different, such as easy self-serve Procurement, services management, statements of work, etc.); and there has been no application thereof that wasn’t designed to enhance, or, most of the time, just make existing applications accessible. A standalone map would be senseless. (Instead, the intake and orchestrate requirements that are necessary for success should be included in the definition, and measurement of, Procurement, Sourcing, Supplier Management and other existing applications that can deliver enterprise value.)

3b. Start calling vendors out on bullsh!t when they start chasing, or putting, cool tech before practical solutions with actual ROI.

Privately at first (of course), unless the vendor insists on marketing it through a bullhorn. Then we may have no choice but to publicly call them out on it. Vendors may not like it, and may get upset when we burst their tech-centric bubble, but we’re not helping anyone when we don’t. Not us, not the procurement professionals we claim to support, and definitely not the vendors if we don’t try to dissuade them from throwing good money after bad on tech that won’t solve actual problems and ultimately won’t sell once their potential clients see the lack of value that comes with the price tag. This space has always been about ROI, we need to remind vendors of that, and guide them to where the ROI is just as we guide the practitioners. We need to be helpful to both sides to mature the space.

the doctor‘s not sure it’s enough, but it’s a start, and if other analysts make an effort to figure out how to restore our reputation, maybe we’ll find the answer, provide the unparalleled value that only we can provide, and get back the trust we should have.

Thoughts?

PROCUREMENT STINKS!

Note the Sourcing Innovation Editorial Disclaimers and note this is a very opinionated rant!  Your mileage will vary!  (And not about any firm in particular.)

Why aren’t you bothered by the smell?!?

If you haven’t been following along, we’ll lay out the top six reasons for you.

1. Case studies are ranker than expired fish in a microwave … and you don’t seem to care.

As per yesterday’s post, Have We Been In The Dank Basement So Long That We Don’t Care If the Fish Stinks?, we’re accepting that case studies are now nothing more than meaningless marketing mush and not even saying anything.

2. Approximately 85% of companies are AI-washing everything.

And the majority of these solutions don’t have any AI, or at least don’t have any native AI and are reliant entirely on questionable AI integrations. AI is hard. Really f6ck1ng hard. It’s not something you whip up overnight, especially if you want a solution that addresses a real problem with a real solution with any reliability. Before the Gen-AI craze, the doctor spent almost two decades here on Sourcing Innovation (and six years on Spend Matters) trying to educate you on the value of (strategic sourcing) decision optimization (SSDO), advanced (predictive) analytics, and proper targetted machine-learning AI that could provide better projections than the majority of “experts” — and the handful of vendors (and he means handful) that had this technology because, at any one time, we’ve never had more than half a dozen or so true SSDO vendors, a dozen or so true spend analytics providers with best-in-class technology, and more than 1 or 2 companies out of every 10 with true AI (and none with AI for more than a few targeted problems, but sometimes that was all you needed to identify extremely significant pockets of value and savings). Now, all of a sudden, we’ve gone from less than 20% to 85% literally overnight, when true AI advances have traditionally taken decades? Not f6ck1ng likely! Not only is AI a buzzword (as pointed out by Sarah Scudder), but it’s a delivery mechanism which, FYI, is a method by which the virus spreads itself.

3. Gen-AI claims that it will deliver Procurement to the enterprise are false.

It will deliver Procurement somewhere, but not the enterprise, unless the enterprise is code for Purgatory or Sheol. Gen-AI, which stands for Generative AI, literally means “AI that makes stuff up“, and, more specifically, since it’s trained to please, it makes stuff up that it thinks you want it to, not stuff that’s true, safe, or even legal. It’s NOT trustworthy, and won’t solve your Procurement problems. And while it may be a bit better at creating natural language responses, we’ve had Natural Language Processing (NLP) commercially for almost two decades, and a few vendors built very good, very reliable solutions, that will provide you with a significantly better chatbot than yet another custom variant of “chat, j’ai pété“. (There are no valid uses for Gen-AI that can’t be accomplished better, faster, and cheaper with existing tech.) [FYI, we blame the AI vendors who are pushing one side marketing here, and not the Procurement Vendors and Consultancies who fell for it.  If you don’t get both sides of the story, how can you form a good opinion?]

4. Intake / Orchestration is totally useless on its own.

There’s always a bandwagon we have to deal with, but rarely do we have two competing, often overlapping, equally useless bandwagons to deal with, with intake-to-orchestrate now speeding towards the cliff almost as fast as Gen-AI. As we discussed in Marketplace Madness, the days of pure intake-to-orchestrate are numbered because:

  • Intake is Pay Per View on YOUR data. Why are you paying for another view into your data?!?
  • Orchestrate is Solution Sprawl. It’s adding to the problem it purports to solve.
  • Intake-to-Orchestrate is Where’s the Beef? Sure you’re integrating everything and getting visibility into everything, but that’s not Procurement — which is identifying and strategically managing spend. So if the platform isn’t doing that, why not buy a platform that is that supports intake-to-orchestrate natively and allows you to manage strategic spend for risk reduction and savings???

5. Consultancies, purporting to help you, are often more in the dark than you are!

Big X and Mid-Sized Consultancies, which followed the money into tech, and then followed the money into Procurement, did so without any knowledge of where they were going or what was at the end of the yellow brick road, expecting to learn on the way. While some of the firms had good knowledge of Procurement from an operational or logistics perspective, they generally had little knowledge in tech and even less knowledge on the ProcureTech landscape (and most would be challenged to name 66 vendors, yet alone the 666 companies in the Sourcing Innovation Source-to-Pay+ Mega Map). And while some rolled up their sleeves, kicked off their shoes, and dug in until they got it, others still have no clue how to differentiate the vendors that purport to offer the same (set of) module(s) and determine which one is best for you … and, as a result, all they end up doing is recommending a “best-in-class provider” for which they are a preferred implementation partner (which usually happens to be one they picked from a Market Map, all of which give THE REVELATOR a migraine and the doctor anger management issues because meshing 6+ dimensions on an axis and/or putting a roll-up interface on top of the map that no one understands only adds to the confusion).  [It’s up to you do differentiate the good from the bad, know when you should be using Big X and mid-sized consultancies, when you should be using niche firms and independent experts, and when you should still be doing your homework and understanding your problem before even engaging anyone!  Otherwise, the failure is on you!]

But it’s even worse than this … many of the mid-market and smaller specialist consulting firms don’t have any more knowledge than the Big X  and larger mid-sized consultancies beyond the vendors they have personally worked with. the doctor is sad to say that he’s been talking to quite a number of them and has yet to find one that has a methodology for identifying third party solutions beyond hiring true expert consultants and practitioners with decades of solution (related) experience. And while you will get a good solution from one of their consultants (as they are hand picked by people that know what they are doing), there are two problems here for you:

  • you won’t necessarily get the best solution because the consultant won’t know about it
  • if that consultant retires, which is inevitable as the consultants with the cross-role and industry experience to get this right are closing in on three decades of experience (because you need practitioner/developer, manager, integrator, and consulting experience), and are, thus, a decade or less from retirement, will her replacement be as good?

and two problems for the firm:

  • when the leaders retire, will there be anyone with the necessary depth of knowledge to take their place
  • with not enough senior people to fill the roles relative to the large number of companies that need digitization and Procurement transformation, how will they scale and grow?

It’s too bad that, unlike the next generation of Procurement Providers (like Zip, who realized they needed a Head of Research in-house to help identify what their market was looking for so they could develop the right solution), it would appear that none of these consultancies have realized that they need an internal consultant to keep tabs on the market and help them not only manage technology partners, but qualify the solutions and figure out which clients those technology partners are most appropriate for, so that they can ensure the success of both their clients and their technology partners (and be the consultancy of choice for that partner who will prioritize their deals because they are confident the consultancy vetted the potential client before dangling a “deal” in front of them). (Or, if they are just starting to think about the issue, realize that they can’t just give an existing consultant this role as the background required is different than that of the consultant who works with the clients day-in-and-day-out.)

(FYI: the doctor is not the only one thinking this or saying this, although me might be the only one willing to state it publicly. He’s talked to a number of growing technology solution providers in our space that literally have “consulting” firms tripping over each other to be the provider’s “partner” as a result of the downturn many of these consultancies are experiencing [as qualified by THE PROPHET in his piece on the Consulting Bloodbath], but many of these consultancies are unable to qualify what unique value they would bring to the provider or joint clients [since that first requires understanding what the provider does, how it overlaps with what they do, how that intersection overlaps with what their customers actually need, and being forced to sell, they don’t have time to do all that research]. What these consultancies are failing to understand is that providers who are offering real, sometimes almost immediate, value with their SaaS solutions are getting a lot of traction in this down market and don’t have time or personnel [due to budget cuts when the funding taps turned off] to chase poorly qualified deals or deals with little or no profit for the provider. So when all the provider saw in the past from some of these consultancies was poorly qualified deals, they are wary of working with the consultancy that didn’t take the time to understand the potential customer, the necessary solution, and what the hot provider actually did.)

6. DEI is being misused to push agendas and, in some cases, commit fraud!

DEI, which was supposed to be about “equity” (which is supposed to be “fair” and “impartial” and “freedom from bias or favouritism”, as defined by the Oxford and Webster’s dictionaries), somehow became all about “equitable outcomes“*, and now that is being used to push agendas and, sometimes, commit outright fraud as we have numerous examples of not only universities, cities, organizations, and countries mandating a lead Procurement role be filled by a minority (whether or not any exist with the required qualifications), but sometimes firing the person in the role to place a more junior person into the role under the guise of “DEI” so that the leader can ensure that all Procurements go his way (which can include purchases to organizations he is invested in, or gets campaign funds from, and so on). The most recent example is the city of Chicago, with the ramifications laid bare by THE PROPHET in his recent article on Why Would Chicago’s Mayor Fire Its Top Procurement Executive and Bring in Someone With a Fraction of the Experience?

* which is not at all equitable because that is not “fair”, “impartial”, or “free from bias” when you insist a minority be hired; equity is supposed to be about “equitable opportunity”, but apparently no one in DEI knows how to use a dictionary anymore

Now that you understand this, why are you putting up with it? Why aren’t you demanding more? You have every right to demand more, and you should be demanding more of your vendors, consultants, and Procurement leaders!

Because if you don’t, The Prophet‘s April Fools Day joke on how we must #EndProcurement might just become reality!

Enterprises have a Data Problem. And they will until they accept they need to do E-MDM, and it will cost them!

insideBIGDATA recently published an article on The Impact of Data Analytics Integration Mismatch on Business Technology Advancements which did a rather good job on highlighting all of the problems with bad integrations (which happen every day [and just result in you contributing to the half a TRILLION dollars that will be wasted on SaaS Spend this year and the one TRILLION that will be wasted on IT Services]), and an okay job of advising you how to prevent them. But the problem is much larger than the article lets on, and we need to discuss that.

But first, let’s summarize the major impacts outlined in the article (which you should click to and read before continuing on in this article):

  • Higher Operational Expenses
  • Poor Business Outcomes
  • Delayed Decision Making
  • Competitive Disadvantages
  • Missed Business Opportunities

And then add the following critical impacts (which is not a complete list by any stretch of the imagination) when your supplier, product, and supply chain data isn’t up to snuff:

  • Fines for failing to comply with filings and appropriate trade restrictions
  • Product seizures when products violate certain regulations (like ROHS, WEEE, etc.)
  • Lost Funds and Liabilities when incomplete/compromised data results in payments to the wrong/fraudulent entities
  • Massive disruption risks when you don’t get notifications of major supply chain incidents when the right locations and suppliers are not being monitored (multiple tiers down in your supply chain)
  • Massive lawsuits when data isn’t properly encrypted and secured and personal data gets compromised in a cyberattack

You need good data. You need secure data. You need actionable data. And you won’t have any of that without the right integration.

The article says to ensure good integration you should:

  • mitigate low-quality data before integration (since cleansing and enrichment might not even be possible)
  • adopt uniformity and standardized data formats and structures across systems
  • phase out outdated technology

which is all fine and dandy, but misses the core of the problem:

Data is bad (often very, very bad), because the organizations don’t have an enterprise data management strategy. That’s the first step. Furthermore this E-MDM strategy needs to define:

  1. the master schema with all of the core data objects (records) that need to be shared organizational wide
  2. the common data format (for ids, names, keys, etc.) (that every system will need to map to)
  3. the master data encoding standard

With a properly defined schema, there is less of a need to adopt uniformity across data formats and structures across the enterprise systems (which will not always be possible if an organization needs to maintain outdated technology either because a former manager entered into a 10 year agreement just to be rid of the problem or it would be too expensive to migrate to another system at the present time) or to phase out outdated technology (which, if it’s the ERP or AP, will likely not be possible) since the organization just needs to ensure that all data exchanges are in the common data format and use the master data encoding standard.

Moreover, once you have the E-MDM strategy, it’s easy to flush out the HR-MDM, Supplier/SupplyChain-MDM, and Finance-MDM strategies and get them right.

As THE PROPHET has said, data will be your best friend in procurement and supply chain in 2024 if you give it a chance.

Or, you can cover your eyes and ears and sing the same old tune that you’ve been singing since your organization acquired its first computer and built it’s first “database”:

Well …
I have a little data
I store it on my drive
And when it’s old and flawed
The data I’ll archive

Oh, data, data, data
I store it on my drive
And when it’s old and flawed
The data I’ll archive

It has nonstandard fields
The records short and lank
When I try to read it
The blocks all come back blank

I have a little data
I store it on my drive
And when it’s old and flawed
The data I’ll archive

My data is so ancient
Drive sectors start to rot
I try to read my data
The effort comes to naught

Oh, data, data, data
I store it on my drive
And when it’s old and flawed
The data I’ll archive

The Prophet‘s 2024 Procurement Prediction Number 10

A “CFA-like” Credential Emerges in Procurement and Supply Chain B+.

The Prophet says that the procurement and supply chain industries, similar to most others, excluding finance, are lacking any certifications/credentials, by those “in the know,” as a superior qualification for a job than even a top degree from a world-class or specialized university which is totally true.

The Prophet also says that organizations such as CIPS, ISM, SIG, etc., might disagree with this viewpoint which is also totally true. The Prophet does note that he supports all of these organizations, which the doctor does as well, and that he believes their training materials are highly valuable, which the doctor doesn’t across the board. (the doctor has seen some of their training materials. While some of their training materials provide a very good foundation, some of their training materials are not so good. Most of these organizations are very weak when it comes to analysis, tech-backed processes and practices, government/industry specific compliance requirements, risk management in today’s increasingly fragile global supply chains. etc. But when so many Procurement departments are struggling with the basics, understanding what their role is, and how ethics should enter the equation, we do need these organizations and that is why the doctor supports them while reminding you to do your homework when it comes to training. Use them for their strengths, not their weaknesses.)

The Prophet then suggests that in 2024, credentials will take on new meaning, and the best ones, particularly those challenging to obtain and requiring rigorous exams (which many fail), similar to the CFA in finance, will begin to take on a new significance in Procurement.

the doctor agrees with the principle, but does not agree it will happen this year, or even next year. Why? This will only happen with industry regulation, and that only happens in two situations.

  1. when an industry-led body gains enough support from the majority of professionals in an industry to make it a de-facto requirement in any employer of any size to get a high-level procurement job; no organization yet has that weight, and we’re not going to see the NLPA, SIG, APS, etc. all fold into the ISM, and definitely not into CIPS, which is pseudo-global (as it has made progress in some of the Commonwealth); this means that we’d need to see a new industry initiative that gave all parties representation and allowed them all to contribute to the standard and exam — for this to form, a certification to be adopted, and a test accepted will take years
  2. when a government forces a requirement that can only be met by a certification (and either creates their own or adopts one); governments move slow, and when we have the situation in the US where
    1. the republican focus is on ripping democrats apart for what they didn’t do, rolling back human rights to the fifties, and installing a wannabe dictator as President-for-Life
    2. the democrat focus is on shaming the republicans, selectively protecting the human rights they want, and taking up the former republican war mantle (since Trump just wants to be a dictator, which doesn’t profit the military complex) and doing everything they can to back Ukraine and Israel (including risking World War III with their Middle East bombing of Yemen vs. just destroying every Houthi vessel launched into the water)

    and the situation in the UK where

    1. the conservatives are too busy trying to keep Dishy Rishy from making them the laughing stock of the political world (as he’s so far disconnected from the common person he has no clue)
    2. the liberal (democrats) are too busy trying to counter the conservative support for the global wars and lack of focus on the situation at home by being extra woke (and we know how that fared in America) …
    3. when we look at the NHS mess and postal service mess and their apparent unwillingness to do anything meaningful about it (for longer than should be humanly possible to ignore a crisis), it seems that good procurement is the last thing on their mind

which are the two countries that would need to lead such an effort (as the EU is very focussed on climate change and AI and struggling to hold itself together now with active protests in about a third of its member states on any given day; heck it’s too focussed on attacking the farmers, already forgetting what happened when Stalin called the Farmers the enemy of the state. (See this article, for example).

Thus, while such regulation is sorely needed, it’s not likely to happen, if it happens at all, until the later part of the decade (unless, of course, The Prophet and the The Public Defender want to once again band together and take up the charge and lead the effort to bring all the necessary parties together).

The Prophet was dead on with three of the primary reasons we need it.

  • GPAs are no longer a measure of academic performance in many universities.
    The Prophet notes that, according to the Yale Daily News, “Yale College’s mean GPA was 3.70 for the 2022-23 academic year, and 78.97 percent of grades given to students were A’s or A-’s,” including the hard sciences and engineering! He also notes that the Michigan State Broad Business School (which includes the Supply Chain and Procurement degree programs) also experiences significant grade inflation, with 80% of students in 3 out of 5 undergraduate classes earning a 4.0. (Source)
    The situation is even worse in China where you don’t even get accepted to some Universities unless you are an A- or better student, and where you are under intense pressure to maintain that A, to the point where a student will drop out (or commit suicide) rather than risk being thrown out for not maintaining it. Now, this would be great except for the fact that As are often contingent on rote memorization and learning to do the work the “state way”, not always with any free thinking whatsoever. (And then graduating ONLY if they think you’ll agree to share what you learn when they allow you to go outside China for that Post-Doc/Professor position).
    The situation is better in Canada [except Quebec], but there are some Universities / Departments that are under great pressure to remain competitive to maintain grant and industry funding, and others where the professors are so overworked that they don’t even bother to confirm that a Master’s student in Engineering can manually calibrate an oscilloscope or a Master’s student in Computer Science can appropriately identify and test for all boundary cases in a simple procedure. (Remember, the doctor has been a Professor, and maintains regular contact with Professors and knows this to be truth.) How could you trust either to validate your equipment or your code? (He couldn’t!) (Regarding Quebec, the current premiere is taking Quebec’s status as a nation within a nation and essentially discriminating against anyone who is not French and willing to speak French as a first, and only, language. [See this article, for example.])
  • DEI/affirmative action preferences, which still exist (despite the supreme court ruling and their illegality if they enforce admitting or hiring a less qualified candidate), have removed objective academic criteria in both degree-based programs and industrial training programs. This has resulted in candidates who might only be a D being admitted to programs because of their minority status while non-minority candidates with Bs were excluded.
  • The best talent may no longer be pursuing traditional college or graduate programs. There needs to be an objective means of evaluating hard and learned skills for those who cannot afford or do not wish to invest time in university studies, especially those who have taken industry training programs or annex courses specific to what they need as well as obtained relevant real world experience under a mentor. (There’s a reason there used to be apprenticeships; some learning onlly happened under the guidance of a mentor.)

The only other reason that needs to be mentioned in the doctor‘s view is

  • without a certification, how can you know that any candidate, no matter how experienced and skilled they appear, knows all of the foundations you need them to know? With so many different definitions of sourcing, procurement, and purchasing; so many different thoughts on what an individual should know about analytics, supplier identification, supplier vetting/onboarding/management/development, negotiation, contracting, global trade, logistics, risk identification and management, compliance, finance / finance support, etc., how can we have a solid baseline with a (multi-level) certification program?

It would be great if 2024 is the year that we saw this certification, but while we desperately need it, the doctor believes that, unfortunately, it’s still years away. (But he will challenge The Prophet to step up and make it happen!)

A CPO Leading a Spend Management Strategy is a Key to Organizational Success

Not that long ago, the doctor gave you THE SIGN that you need a CPO which, directly put, was that your organizational spend was over 10 Million a year. No ifs, ands, or buts about it! Not long after, he found this article over on CXOtoday.com which pointed out that empowering business success was The Art of Mastering Spend Management. This article stated that companies should consider implementing a spend management strategy, regardless of their size and it made him happy (even though the article looks like it was written by a junior copy-editor* who just cut and paste standard spend management summary sentences from generic spend management publications as it was not very deep or specific) because CXOs need to hear this at a high level over and over and over again until they get it. (Note that the doctor doesn’t get happy often. Most articles just make him angry. Sometimes very angry, especially when the conscientious invoke their right to dare to be stupid and embrace artificial idiocy, but that’s a rant for another day.)

The article starts off by clearly stating that a spend management strategy plays a vital role in today’s economic reality as it enables companies to control costs, boost financial efficiency, and make informed decisions. It ensures resource optimization, agility, and long-term stability, enhancing competitiveness and adaptability in a rapidly changing business landscape.

This is most certainly true. And all one has to do to see that it is true, and it would have been so much better if the article said this, is remember the first formula they teach you in business school:
Profit = Revenue – Expense

Since Spend Management allows you to minimize expenses, this helps you maximize profit. And when you consider that
Margin = Sale Price – COGS      and that
Margin % = (Sale Price – COGS) / Sale Price      and that
Margin % for most industries <= 10%

This says that every $1 saved in expense generates at least as much profit as every $10 increase in sales. As a result, spend management is at least ten times as effective as sales or marketing and key to get a grip on early, even before you can afford the full time CPO. The CFO and COO should develop best practices for any decisions that result in spending, monitor the decisions, ensure corrections are made (and employees [re-]trained) when mistakes are made, and baselines generated for all recurring costs. Even though they might not realize the same level of success as an experienced and dedicated CPO, the baselines they generate and the knowledge they capture will be key when the CPO starts as the knowledge will allow them to dive in quickly and find near-term and mid-term opportunities for improvement (and cost reduction) and the benchmarks will allow them to not only prove it, but ensure that all bids received are competitive.

The only thing we want to note is that the important aspects of spend management, especially for smaller organizations, are:

  • strategy,
  • process (that implements the strategy), and
  • governance (that ensures the process is followed and the strategy implemented)

Technology is not critical (or even necessary), and only technology that supports the process (and collects the appropriate data) should be implemented.

This is important to note because this article is sponsored by a particular vendor in an effort to promote a particular product (which is only good for T&E spend, not all organizational spend) and you don’t necessarily need that technology (or any other instance of that technology) to have a spend management strategy and do proper spend management, especially if you are a smaller organization. (However, larger organizations do need good T&E spend management, and spend analysis, because flowers should not be $5,000 unless it’s a greenhouse.)

* but what should one expect considering it was sponsored by SAP to promote SAP Concur (and routed through their PR Agency)?