Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Despite what they say, Size Matters! Part I

Before your mind wanders off in the wrong direction, I’m talking about your manageable external spend size. (Not your company size, or revenue size, but your actual external spend size!)

You see, not every solution fits every company, and it’s not just a matter of company, process, and Procurement Maturity; not just a matter of what is being bought and for what; but a matter of spend size.

Here’s the thing, sourcing strategy depends on three primary factors:

  • the category
  • current market conditions
  • spend size

The third is critical. If you’re only spending 100K, you’re not going to do a multi-stage RFP with multi-objective optimization analyzing multiple factors against multiple award scenarios and spend 10K in personnel time and cloud costs for a 5K savings. If you’re spending 100M, you’re going to do a multi-stage event with deep supplier and product vetting, should and target cost analysis, multi-objective optimization models against multiple potential award scenarios, multi-round negotiation, and so on.

This is very important. If you’re a small mid-market that only spends 20M a year externally, and your largest category is 200K, your sourcing scenarios are going to be pretty simple. Even though those categories are strategic for you, they are not strategic sourcing in the enterprise sense of the word, which is the sense the big suites try to sell you. All you need is an e-Procurement+ solution with simple RFPs for your big categories and RFQs for the rest.

Now, if you’re a mid-mid-market spending 100M a year with categories 1M plus, that’s not enough. You need sourcing support, but it’s not full fledged strategic sourcing as defined by an enterprise suite. It’s sourcing execution. You need some onboarding, some qualification, some multi-round RFP support with feedback, some basic analytics, and some negotiation support. You don’t need deep optimization or a top-of-the-line analytics solution, an end-to-end third party risk management and compliance solution, or extensive integrated contract creation and redlining support — you just need Word document support as you’re redlining in Word.

In other words e-Procurement isn’t enough. You need some supplier management, sourcing, analytics, and contract document management. And it should all be integrated cohesively. But it’s not a suite.

Now, if you’re a large global organization, spending 500M plus with 10M to 100M categories, that’s different. You need broad and deep. Full multi-stage sourcing with auto-RFX generation, scenario support, and sourcing optimization, which needs to be deeply integrated into the deep supplier and third party management module with extensive onboarding, compliance, risk, and performance support; the analytics module that can analyze offers and compare them against historical, project, should, and target cost scenarios; and the contract lifecycle module that manages the full negotiation, indexing, tracking, and execution of the contract.

This is all very relevant because it determines two things

  1. what type of solution you need
  2. how much you should expect to pay

So how much should you pay? Stay tuned.

How to Do “Predictions” Right!

I just finished my dangerous procurement predictions series, where I pointed out 15 of the most dangerous predictions made by the influencers trying to get clicks with sensationalism, whether or not their predictions had any grounding in the real world, and whether or not acceptance of those predictions would lead to disastrous decisions on your part.

And while the majority of annual prediction posts now fall into these first categories, there are still a few, by the old timers, that are done right where they look at where things are, what is happening, and where they are likely to go based on trends and pattern similarity to what came before. (You know, that thing called history that everyone seems to have forgotten about in the AI age that is destined to make the dot com bust look like a tiny blip.)

One example is Bob Ferrari’s Supply Chain Matters post.

Prediction

“The true effects of increased tariffs, U.S. trade policy shifts and the nationalization of supply networks will become more impactful in 2026.”

Prediction Background

“We had predicted that businesses would be compelled toward executing various forms of China Plus sourcing strategies as a response to increasing trade conflict, significant disruptions and needs for added increased supply network resiliency.”

“In December 2025, business broadcasting network CNBC cited data published by Wells Fargo Supply Chain Finance that indicates that since the initial Trump Administration trade conflict, supply chain sourcing diversification has gradually increased away from China and toward the South Asia Pacific region.”

i.e. he looked at the real world situation, and then identified the most logical response … and then followed the market with respect to that response, captured the data, and re-analyzed his position

Tactical Implications

“In 2026, the implications of increased tariff will be manifested in higher working capital costs and increased product pricing among various US and global based manufacturers and suppliers.”

Long Term Strategic Implications

“Our prediction is that within a two to three year window, the effects of U.S. trade policy will lead to a pronounced transition toward more regional focused product demand and supply networks.”

Furthermore, “what eventually comes of the USMCA trade agreement will have fundamental strategic implications for shifts in North America product demand and supply network frameworks.”

Implications for Strategic Sourcing and Procurement Organizations

“Supply chain management teams can no longer focus solely on functionally stovepipe driven key performance and decision-making capabilities nor on singularly focused technology enablement. The organizational implication is one of an end-to-end leadership, goal alignment, and technology enablement perspective.”

i.e. he worked out the short term tactical and long term strategic implications of the developing situation and indicated what leading organizations need to do to survive the turmoil

That’s what a prediction should be — what the reality is likely to be and what an organization needs to do based on that.

Not some whimsical fantasy designed to spread FUD and generate clicks.

Great work Bob!

This post first appeared on LinkedIn.

“Outcomes” is Just Code For …

You’re Getting Ripped Off.

But let’s back up.

THE REVELATOR recently explained Why He’s Done Tracking Gartner (spoiler: they are simply not designed to solve the problem of implementation success in the AI era), and in the post he made two key observations:

1) “Subscription revenue continues regardless of outcome. Predictions expire and are replaced. There are no consequences for failure.”

In other words, they are dangling outcomes, but not doing anything to ensure you get them, and because they are never to blame, the subscription revenue continues. However, it’s only fair to point out that this is NOT unique to Gartner! It’s the Big Analyst Firm Model. It’s why the doctor doesn’t work for Big Analyst Firms (because they refuse to update their methodologies which are decades out of date and hinder more than they help), and why I worked for Spend Matters for years until the buyout (by a PE firm that, frankly, almost destroyed it as they completely stopped all innovation) and why the doctor deeply respects boutique firms like HFS Research because they keep trying to modernize their offerings to provide real value and guide clients to real results.

2) “What scales in this industry is engagement—not outcomes.”

And this is dead-on. The rhetoric is being thrown around by way too many services(-adjacent) firms (who want to charge based on it) and software firms (who won’t charge based on it). And all of it is usually to mislead you on what you should be getting and what you should be paying!

Here’s the reality you’re not being told when they want to, or refuse to, price on outcomes.

1) If a services firm wants to charge based only outcomes, it’s because it expects to make way more money that way. It’s common in audit recovery, contract re-negotiation, and SaaS consolidation because these expert firms know just how much you are overpaying if you’ve never done these efforts before. They also know that they can use cheap software and benchmarks and experience to quickly find the savings you can’t, and make big bucks off of you by charging on outcomes (and not effort and/or software).

2) If a services-as-software firm wants to charge based on outcomes, especially an “Agentic AI” powered one, it’s because their true costs are higher than they let on (due to hefty Gen-AI compute costs) and they aren’t viable offering a classic subscription-based service model.

3) If a software firm refuses to price in (a hybrid cost model based on) outcomes, it’s because they know you won’t get those outcomes unless they (as a firm) put in a lot of work training, guiding, and helping you achieve those outcomes. When their model is “install and backhaul” (out of there) until renewal time (because if they don’t hit their unattainable PE-defined sales numbers, they will be told to hit the road, so they have to spend all their time on sales).

The reality is “outcome-based pricing” only encourages success when done right — and done right is done in a manner that encourages, as THE REVELATOR notes, engagement-focussed.

That’s why, in our post on why you should STOP PAYING PROCURETECH/FINTECH ADVISORIES A DOLLAR JUST TO LOSE THREE DOLLARS!, we told you this is how you should negotiate, and pay for, software and services when “outcomes” are involved:

1. For software, you will pay a base annual fee for the platform that will cover 150% of their base hosting costs, so they won’t lose, and then a percentage of transactions, identified savings through sourcing events, contract value, etc. where the percentage is calculated such that if you save 100% of their promised savings, they will make 50% more than what you would pay on a fixed cost after negotiation -— if they are so confident in their claims, this should be a no-brainer for them. (But if they won’t agree to this, it should tell you what ROI you can actually expect!)

2. For GPO agreements, you will pay a fixed amount on each transaction, calculated based upon the expected savings before you sign the contract, and if they can deliver the savings, you will definitely be using them regularly —- and, as with the Tech Provider — you will calculate this so that they win bigger than if you pay them a fixed cost IF they generate a return for you!

3. For services (outsourcing), you will pay a fixed rate per hour that is enough to cover the assigned personnel cost (their salary plus 30% overhead), and any compensation beyond that will be dependent on the department delivering an ROI beyond a certain amount (which is the amount required to cover the basic fee you are paying them); and again, you’ll fix the compensation such that if they deliver 100% or more of what they promise, they will win big too. (And if they deliver less, while their costs will be covered, their profit will be next to 0.)

Outcomes is a Dirty Word! Part II

And you shouldn’t have to hear it!

The word of the day is still outcomes, and, no matter where it’s used, it’s still a dirty word.

Yesterday we gave you many examples of where outcome-based pricing has become the norm which includes, but is not limited to:

  • GPOs
  • Recovery Audit Firms
  • AI-first services-as-software
  • Big Consultancy projects

and where every single situation the entire point of the “outcome”-based sales pitch was just a ploy to convince you to pay more for less because

  • suppliers will happily match GPO prices for reasonable commitments as they have to pay the GPO a 1.5% to 3.0%+ administrative fee to get that business, and, moreover, at the head of the tail you can always get as good, if not better, prices using a tail-spend sourcing solution that automates 3-bids-and-a-buy RFQs and auctions (in a standard format that allows suppliers to automate bids) … and this solution often costs a fraction of what you will pay the GPO based on transaction fees (and then the additional savings from being able to quote every category at the head of the tail and not just what the GPO offers adds up to a greater savings)
  • proper retail-centric e-Procurment augmented with supplier and product management could prevent 90%+ of overpayments to begin with (and Lavante, Inc. proved that over a decade ago — why else would PRGX have acquired it and taken it off the market)
  • for every reliable AI-first services-as-software solution (as we all know that hallucinatory Gen-AI enables and amplifies fraud, security risks, bad decisions, etc.), there is a traditional SaaS alternative for a fraction of the price that does the same thing if you can do without the natural language chatbot interface and a slick UX
  • once a consultancy gets you on outcome-pricing, they are going to focus on projects where they know you are doing particularly poorly, employ junior grunts with five year old playbooks guaranteed to increase efficiency and reduce costs (because you are way above market average cost or way below market average efficiency), and use AI to generate their reports and strategy presentations (and hope the junior grunts both do their job and catch all the hallucinations in the prepared documents)

But, as we said in our last post, that’s not the worst of it.

The worst part of all these “outcome”-based pricing offers is that they are masquerading the grift that keeps on taking! (Which is something any American reading this should be quite familiar with by now!)

It’s not the overcharging that is the most insidious part of “outcome”-based pricing models, it’s what’s behind them.

  • GPOs want you to turn over more and more and more of your procurement to them because, the more you turnover, the more you reduce staff, and the more dependent you become … locking you in for years to come as your fees skyrocket to the point where you’re paying more to them then it would cost you to buy a modern sourcing to settle solution (that supports regular and semi-automated tail procurement and a couple of buyers [who will simply review any tail-spend awards that are new or out of bounds compared to past awards and select the suppliers for regular sourcing events, which the platform will automate until award time])
  • recovery audit firms want you believe only they can keep millions in your pockets and software will never solve the rampant overspend the suppliers siphon out of you, will do anything they can to further the narrative that you’re going to lose millions without them, that you shouldn’t even try to improve your procurement processes, and it’s best to just turn more spend over to them … again locking you in for years and years when you could be taking steps towards reducing your overspend to almost 0 with the right technology, processes, and senior category managers preventing that overspend from ever happening
  • AI-first service-as-software firms want you to go all-in on their service, fire your buyers, and believe that only their tech can get stellar results before compute costs go through the roof, the AI bubble bursts, and/or everyone realizes that the whole thing is being orchestrated by the Wizard of New Oz, it’s a bigger circus than anything P.T. Barnum ever managed to assemble, and when the curtain closes, all you’ll be left with is empty pockets (and, when you’re not looking, just like the auto-classifiers of old, they will throw as many Another Intern at the problem as required to ensure you succeed)
  • the consultancies don’t want you do anything yourself because once you realize that, if you hire qualified people and installed modern systems, you can do it just as good yourself, do it for less, and save a lot of money … so they will try to keep up the savings and strategy show as long as they can

In other words, the whole goal of “outcome”-based pricing is to take away your self-sufficiency, capability, and even knowledge and ensure your entire existence is 100% dependent on them. That way, they stay super profitable at your expense with the grift that keeps on taking!

At the end of the day, the only vendor who won’t price on outcomes is one that knows they can’t actually deliver any, even with fakery, because any vendor who can will find a way to use this trend to inflate prices and grift your hard earned gains!

P.S. You shouldn’t be surprised. It’s the same old story with a new name. It’s been going on since the first modern Procurement solution hit the market.