Category Archives: Market Intelligence

marketdojo Opens the Dojo to Suppliers as Well

When we last checked in on MarketDojo with our posts on how you could walk your own way and plan your own path, they were a relatively new UK company that offered a basic e-Negotiation suite with category guidance. Not much, but when you consider you could:

  • try before you had to commit to a buy with their open sandpit,
  • pay per event, on your P-card and
  • see what suppliers see with toggle view

It was a good entry point for a mid-market Procurement organization that was stuck in the Procurement dark ages and unable to obtain budget for a modern suite (because the C-suite needed to have a guaranteed ROI).

While it was a good start, MarketDojo realized that is all it is — they needed that and more to conquer the mid-market, even in their native homeland. Once a lean, agile, over-tasked, and under-resourced mid-market Procurement organization gets their hand on a tool, they want to advance fast, learn faster, and apply it fast and furious — and they want to be as effective and efficient as possible.

For many companies, this means four things:

  • minimize data re-entry
  • minimize unnecessary supplier interaction
  • track relevant documents and sourcing artifacts
  • identify suppliers with potentially innovative capabilities

That is why MarketDojo has rolled out a full-featured supplier (information) management portal, called, obviously, SIMDojo and included innovation management in their primary offering (the InnovationDojo corner).

With their new SIMDojo offering, which can be used as part of the platform or standalone, which supports supplier self-identification and self-registration, buyers can create the appropriate questionnaires, have suppliers upload the appropriate documents, and lock supplier data (from updates). When suppliers change data, their profile is invalidated until reviewed by an appropriate sourcing professional, insuring only valid and validated suppliers can be included in sourcing events. The platform is simple to use on both sides, and some customers are buying it to augment other platforms they already have.

InnovationDojo is built on the RFX/Survey functionality in MarketDojo, but allows a buyer to issue innovation challenges, collect and score responses, include that information in RFPs, and track and manage innovation projects and responses separately. It’s basic, but it works quite well for the mid-market.

MarketDojo has also made functionality and usabiity enhancements to their platforms across the board, with template management in particular being noticeably improved. With few e-Sourcing companies left serving the mid-market, MarketDojo provides a solid offering, especially to those companies without (a modern) e-Sourcing solution that need to start quick, and keep it basic (to maximize efficiency and SUM [Spend Under Management]).

Influential Sustentation 97: (Traditional) Analysts

There are a number of influential damnations, but as per our post last yer, analysts are among the worst. Why?

  • Analysts are the Gatekeepers of the Gold Seal of Approval

    Just because you have this great new product that contains at least half a dozen innovative features and functions not (yet) found in the competitors’ products, and just because you built one of the best solutions on the market, that doesn’t mean that you will even get a mention in the back pages of a local business journal until it gets a star of approval as an “emerging” solution.

  • If You’re Not on Their Lists, You’re Not on BigCo’s List

    The best way to get coverage, paid or otherwise, is to get a big win. But a big win won’t happen until a big company adopts your solution and gets a big result it wants to advertise to the world. But the chances of a big company even including you on an RFx are slim to none if you’re not on an analyst’s shortlist.

  • If You Won’t Pay to Play, You Might Never Get on the Analyst Firm’s Shortlist

    Analyst firms have two major client pools: BigCos that want to buy the best (tech) solutions and TechCos that want to supply those solutions. BigCos pay for access to the research library and analyst time and TechCos also pay for access to the research library and analyst time to help them draft an attractive roadmap. As a result, the TechCos that get the bulk of consideration are the TechCos that are (big) customers.

  • If You’re Not a Big Client, Good Luck Making the Perilous Pyramid

    Even if you happen to get the attention of the lead analyst on the research report and even if the lead analyst likes you, if your solution is too much of a threat to the research firm’s big TechCo clients good luck meeting the bulk of criteria for inclusion. Minimum revenue, core modules, absolute feature lists, etc. tend to change year to year in a manner that tends to keep big TechCo clients in and keep their biggest threats out.

So what can you do (especially if you don’t have the ability or inclination to write a cheque with a lot of zeroes)?

Be Open.

Don’t be ultra secretive. Don’t shy away from demos. And definitely don’t ask for an NDA. (Which, by the way, is really, really stupid. How can they write about you if you tie them up in an NDA?) Just like customers like a provider that is open and honest (and focussed on helping them solve their problem, not force-feeding a canned solution down their throat), so do (good) analysts.

Be Educative.

Educate them on what you do, why you do it, and why it’s important. Case studies, calculations, efficiency improvements, cost reductions, ROI(C), impact on WACC, etc. Make sure the analyst understands the value to the customer, how much comes from the uniqueness of your offering, how you will educate the customer to help them do better, and how you will continue to improve the solution.

And Be Prepared to Use the Back Door.

If the analyst in question doesn’t care about openness and education, find an analyst that covers an overlapping area in the same firm who is. Especially one that knows she needs to learn and is willing to listen. They can be your way in, and can often hold more influence over their peers than any pay check you could provide.

5 Reasons Why You Need to Take the Direct Procurement Challenge!

Hopefully you attended last week’s webinar on the Direct Procurement Challenge, hosted by the ISM and featuring the doctor and the prophet, where we explained how a sourcing platform cost-centric perfect for indirect doesn’t meet the needs of direct sourcing. But in case you missed it, here are some key requirements not met by typical indirect procurement platforms.

Requirement Indirect Platform Direct Platform
Bill of Materials NO BoM Support Deep multi-level Bill of Materials Support
Cost Breakdown Analysis Limited to ancilliary costs (shipping, taxes, storage, etc.) Deep cost breakdown support across the bill of materials which allows costs to be broken down and spread out across components, the production process, distribution and inventory management, and overhead
EDI, WebEDI, & XML XML data exchange only (maybe) XML, EDI, and WebEDI and direct integration into supplier systems
Quality Management RMA & account credit request (maybe) APQP, sample test reports, standard 8D & QDX complaints report;
goods issue documents
PLM (Product Lifecycle Management) No PLM Support Integrated project management and product lifecycle management
from cost breakdown analysis and BoM definition in the
sourcing phase to production and inventory management in the
supply chain phase to quality management and return management
in the support phase

And in Sourcing Innovation’s latest paper on The Direct Material Procurement Challenge: An Indirect Tool for Direct Procurement is Mission Improbable – Direct Procurement Requires Different Capabilities, the doctor discusses 10 (ten) additional reasons why an average indirect platform cannot solve direct Procurement needs. Check it out!

Best Practices for Agency Evaluations for Strong Client-Agency Relationships


A good agency evaluation process helps marketers improve their return on
marketing investment through better relationship management, which translates into more high-quality work at a faster output and with improved quality results.
Richard Benyon, DecideWare
Surging Ahead, ANA Magazine, June 2016

But what is a good evaluation process?

Let’s start with what marketers do now. When evaluating an agency or a potential agency, marketers collect data and then apply that information to attempt to make better decisions in agency selection using a four-step process.

  1. Identify whether or not the agency has top talent.
  2. Optimize to ensure the talent is working in the most efficient and effective manner.
  3. Then, depending on the situation, fix problems or reward success.
  4. Work to improve their processes to enable the agency to do their best work.

This is a great process, but, as Richard says, before creating a new relationship or extending an existing one, it’s extremely important to have a clear purpose as to why an agency is being evaluated and what the evaluation should achieve. As Richard says, before beginning an evaluation, marketers need to understand:

  • how they will wunderstand agency strengths and areas for improvement,
  • how they will enable the agency to do its best work, and
  • how the evaluation program will be used as a component of incentive compensation.

A good relationship, like a good Procurement Value Engine, is effective (and uses agency strengths), efficient (and enables the agency to do its best work), and sustainable (and incentivizes the agency to continue to do its best work as time goes on).

In addition, it supports the strategic goals of the marketing department — which should be known before the evaluation process begins to make sure the organization knows which strengths and processes will best support the evaluation.

This means that it’s critical to ask the right questions in an evaluation — questions that will deliver actionable information relevant to the assessment at hand. Designing these questionaries is not easy. Not only do the needs of all departments interacting with the agency need to be met, but the questions needs to be focussed with respect to the strategic goals.

So how do you balance the needs with respect to the goals without overloading the agency with meaningless questions and useless work?

As Richard puts it, you need to be

  • lean,
  • impactful,
  • relevant,
  • consistent, and
  • reflective.

And, of course, get the timing right. What does this mean? And how do you do that? That’s the focus of Richard’s latest article by Richard Benyon on Surging Ahead. Check it out.

Don’t Be Fooled. There is no SaaS. Part II

In our last post, we said there is no such thing as Savings-as-a-Service and any organization promising to deliver it (with the exception of the big provider recently valued at 1B) is making a promise they likely won’t keep. The majority of organizations that jump on this new acronym with grandiose claims of SaaS delivery will not meet up to expectations, and many will not deliver any savings at all.

The reason being is that a company is not delivering savings unless they are either delivering a product or service below market average price or delivering a product or service at market average but at a higher value than would normally be obtained (either through enhanced quality, reliability, features, knowledge, etc.). After all, anyone can go to Amazon, Staples, Office Depot, eBay, etc. and figure out a rough market average and get that price if they want to.

For a company to deliver savings, they need to (have a platform that):

  • know what the market average is for a commodity or service, and always provide options that are less or the same with additional value beyond the market norm (which means they need a modern catalog platform)
  • have a way of collecting quotes and bids from potential suppliers that can be compared in a normalized, weighted, apples to apples fashion (which means they need a modern e-Sourcing platform with strong e-Negotiation support capability)
  • have a services team to handle the negotiations and the contract process to make sure that what gets offered gets agreed to
  • have a platform capable of managing the PO, invoice, and goods receipt process (and m-way matching) to make sure that the right products are ordered at the right price, that only invoices at the right price are accepted, and that payments are only made for goods and services received (which means they need a modern e-Procurement platform with strong e-Document management capability)
  • have a platform capable of tracking obligations and supplier performance (to make sure that deliver is on time, quality is up to snuff, etc.) and handling any corrective actions that are needed and supplier development that can improve overall value (which means that a strong SRM platform is needed as well)
  • and have the expertise in the appropriate categories relevant to your business! An engineer from the direct materials world probably know squat about contingent lab or procurement or marketing agency management, which could be where a considerable portion of your unmanaged spend is.

How many providers have a full featured S2P platform with enhanced e-Catalog and SRM functionality, budget integration, analytics that support normalized year-over-year spend reporting, services professionals to support all of this as a true SaaS (Software as a Service) platform *and* the expertise to support the categories you need supported?

The answer is: relative to the number of providers in the Supply Management space, very few. Only this handful of companies can claim that they can deliver Savings-as-a-Service. And, fair warning, their services will come with a hefty price tag. (This is not to say that the price tag will not be worth it, especially since there are providers that can consistently deliver a 5x to 10x ROI year after year, but that you need to be prepared for the price tag up front and willing to work with them and follow their lead in order to realize the savings.)

Because it sounds so awesome, expect a number of companies to jump on this new SaaS acronym, and expect most of them to be stretching the truth at least a little (if not a lot). Do your due diligence and find out what it is they really deliver and what will be expected of your team to realize the ROI they are promising. Then figure out if your team is up to the challenge, can be with training, need (temporary) (GPO) (expert) augmentation, or need a services provider to simply take over part of the Procurement in an outsourcing relationship until they can be brought up to the level (and manpower) needed to realize the ROI themselves.

Everybody wants savings, but simply not paying more than you have to under normal circumstances is not saving, it’s just avoiding clearly unnecessary cost. Savings is going below the baseline, and to realize that, you need a provider that can actually help your organization achieve that consistently across categories.