Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Despite what they say, Size Matters! Part II

In Part I, we noted that size really does matter … when you are selecting a ProcureTech or Source to Pay solution, and, in particular, it’s the size of YOUR spend that matters (and not the size of the vendor or even the vendor offering).

We noted that there is no one-size fits all, that the three main tiers of organizations (small, mid-sized, large) have three different needs (which are nuanced, especially in the mid-market as going from small-mid to big-mid can require leaps in complexity), and that you should be paying based upon the tier you need.

But with 3 tiers of solutions out there, the reality is that if you select a bigger solution than you need, you’re going to pay a lot more for a much smaller return. And that’s just NOT good Procurement.

So what should you pay?

It’s all based on your size, maturity, and need. Well, we answered this a bit in the past when we did our series on how much should you outlay for source to pay. (Part 1, Part 2, and Part 3.)

In the series we did in 2023, our answer was 120K to 500K+ (a year), and we were mainly focussed on the mid-mid-market upward. The answer today is similar.

Small Enterprise, < 20M in external spend, 12K to 24K a year. All you need is basic e-Procurement and basic process support. Many shareware suites and low coding platforms will allow you to configure a lot of what you need. At 20M, your full savings potential is 2M or less, and you’re likely to only realize a quarter of that in the first year, or 500K. So spending more than 24K on a license (when you’ll also have implementation and support costs) does not guarantee a worthwhile return.

Medium Enterprise < 500 M in external spend, 60K to 240K a year. You need basic sourcing execution and e-Procurement. A baseline solution does enough at the lower end, and an enhanced solution with deep supplier management, deep P2P+, and some compliance and risk capabilities. Here, the potential savings could be as high as 50M at the high end, or as low as 3M on the low end, with a potential opportunity ranging from 1M to 10M in the first year. At the low end, especially considering the personnel costs, you probably don’t want to pay more than 100K to guarantee a return. At the higher end, you could pay a Million for a small suite and get a return, but considering there’d only be a couple of categories where it would deliver any incremental value, why pay a Million when there are solutions for 250K that deliver the same value for 90%+ of activity. (For the few categories where it’s worth it, just hire a consultant with access to specialized tools!)

Large Enterprise >= 500M in external spend, 480K to 1M+, depending on the particular deep capabilities you need and any specialized modules and support you need. There’ll be more than enough categories to justify the additional spend, and saving an extra 2% on a 50M category will pay for the increased platform cost!

That’s the rule of thumb. Higher or lower depends upon the expected return. This means that before you spend more, you should work out a realistic ROI. If the return isn’t realistically there, you don’t spend more than you need.

Now I know plenty of vendors will disagree with me, but when solutions exist at all tiers that do everything an appropriately sized buying organization will need at the price points above, why pay more? (Even though the ABC suites will tell you that you should!)

Also, please note, these are license costs with basic support only. If you want or need more support or services, expect to pay more. (And do the ROI on the services before you contract them.)

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.)