Category Archives: Market Intelligence

Bells and Whistles Lead to Cells and Thistles! Part II

In Part I, after noting that I’ve been hearing and seeing the following too often lately:

  • smaller vendors struggling to close/losing deals because the bigger/splashier vendors have more “Bells and Whistles”
  • vendors getting lots of (and possibly too much) funding focusing heavy on bells and whistles

I said that we were going to dive into some of the most common bells and whistles and why, in the best case, they’re a complete waste of money and, in the worst case, the thorn prick will end up being so painful that your team will simply stop using the software. (And often do so before the subscription is half, or even a third, up, which leaves you in an expensive subscription jail you cannot stop paying for even though no one is using it.)

But before we continue with the modules, here are two of the most common bells and whistles across all Source-to-Pay platforms that deliver absolutely no value whatsoever.

Flashy UX

A lot of startups over-focus on the UI and UX, believing that the big problem with today’s platforms is that they are too unfriendly and too hard to use (which is often the case with older generation suites, but not the case with the majority of newer, mid-market, suites and best-of breeds) and that everything can be made simple with an AI-driven workflow that makes all of Sourcing and Procurement easy-peasy (which it is if you are buying pens and paper for the stockroom, but that’s about all that’s easy peasy).

They then get professional speakers and presenters to train their salespeople on these very flashy, impressive looking, platforms to give awe-inspiring demos on the pen and paper buying process (with the promise that everything is just as easy) that management and buyers eat up, even though the buyers aren’t allowed to play with it first (and see what happens if they try to source custom built FPGAs for their control systems or specialized implementation and integration services for their new supply chain planning software that needs to connect to the ERP, the direct sourcing module, and the CRM — which is where their over-simplified flashy UX will fall apart completely as there will be no deep functionality behind it).

The reality is that it is not flash, fancy UI, or even AI-driven automation, that matters in enterprise software. What matters is the effort required to do daily tasks of moderate plus complexity, and that is often best accomplished by sophisticated workflows that are pre-configured for different scenarios and very simple, step-wise, input screens (with the current step and complete workflow highlighted) that allow a person to see where they are, why they are there, what they need to enter, and what comes next. It’s often the case that the screens aren’t minimal, aren’t colourful, and aren’t flashy. (There’s a reason that green screens lasted so long and that’s because, well designed, they made work efficient — remember, it’s not personal entertainment software, it’s business software your team might need to use 10 times a day and if the flashy software requires 30 screens because they are all too minimalistic [when it should require 10], or doesn’t support the process at all, it doesn’t matter how good it looks or how easy it is to use.) The best software is designed to ensure that all of the common repetitive tasks, no matter how variable they can be, can be accomplished as quickly as possible with as little human input as possible, and you can’t always make that minimal, flashy, or appealing to the inner artist.

Adaptive AI-Driven Automation

A lot of (over-funded) startups on the Gen-AI Hype Train (who have been Blinded By The Hype) believe that they can use the latest and greatest version of Gen-AI (which, FYI, has a 48% failure rate if we’re talking the latest ChatGPT version as of the time of this being posted) to automatically adapt to all input requests and automate every sourcing and/or procurement process they claim to cover. They can’t. And they never will be able to because hallucinations are a core function of LLM technology (regardless of which LLM you use).

As a result, while it will work great for most of the standard requests and processes and get them mostly, if not entirely right, anytime anything sophisticated or exceptional comes along, it will break down completely. If you’re lucky, it won’t know what to do, won’t do anything, and force human intervention — forcing you to design and build a full process by hand through it’s painful conversational interface that will require you to repeat yourself multiple times and specify the same request in six different, increasingly precise, manners until it builds the process you need. If you’re not lucky, it will assume your request to order 1000 Ford brake shoes (for your fleet of vans) is actually a request to order 1000 Nike Jams (breaking shoes) because your last order from James Ford (a sales manager who likes to abuse his P-Card and gets away with it because he signs the largest contracts and the boss looks the other way) was for Nike Jams, and the system automatically orders 1000 pairs of Nike Jams, shipped to Fords office. Moreover, you don’t notice, because it says order placed, delivery in 5 days, and you don’t bother to verify because you’re in a hurry (and it worked okay on the last 9 order requests you made).

If, in comparison, you had an e-Procurement system that you could setup with standard re-orders off of contracts, you could type re-order brake shoes in the universal search bar and it would brings up the standard order pre-filled with units, supplier, and standard delivery date and you could simply hit submit to get the standard re-order with 100% certainty, or change the supplier, delivery location, delivery time, and/or units to make a simple change. No ambiguity, and no chance of error. It’s 3 words and 2 clicks, and you’re not waiting 15 seconds for it to parse your request and 15 seconds to do who-knows-what and give you a verification.

In other words, bells and whistles look and sound cool, until you realize that the ringing can be deafening to the point it gives you such a headache that you can’t get your work done.

Moreover, after 25 years in the space and 19 as an (independent) analyst, I can tell you that this correlation almost always holds true:

The more bells and whistles a product has, the less actual functionality or support for complex or exceptional situations or process is actually embedded in the tool, and the less useful it ultimately is over time.

The tool will ultimately end up as yet another piece of shelfware (that you are locked into for another year or three if it’s SaaS, and more if it’s not), and that’s why the average mid-sized and larger enterprise has somewhere between 300 and 1000 SaaS applications! (Because most aren’t used!)

Seek deep solutions that solve your problems and allow your team to become more efficient over time, not razzle-and-dazzle solution based on the wisdom of P.T. Barnum: “the people like to be humbugged“.

To make it clear how useless bells and whistles are, we will continue this series and address major areas of Source-to-Pay starting in Part III.

Bells and Whistles Lead to Cells and Thistles! Part I

I’ve been hearing and seeing two things lately:

  • smaller vendors telling me they’re struggling to close / losing deals because their potential customers are telling them they are leaning towards the bigger/splashier vendor with more “Bells and Whistles”
  • vendors getting lots of (and possibly too much) funding are focussing heavy on bells and whistles (because they believe it will help them sell fast and meet the significant, and often unrealistic, sales targets of the investment firm[s])

So I have to address this because if you select a solution based on bells and whistles, expect to end up in a cell while your fingers bleed from the thistles that prick you every time you try do something that’s not the primary, simple, use case. This then leads to usage of your purchase declining quickly, causing you to end up with another piece of shelfware before you get even halfway through the initial contract subscription.

Now, to help you understand I’m not making this up for clicks and shares, we’re going to dive into some of the most common bells and whistles and why, in the best case, they’re a complete waste of money and, in the worst case, the thorn prick will end up being so painful that your team will simply stop using the software. We’re going to do this across source-to-pay.

Intake

Everyone’s gotta have it because, apparently, it’s brand new and Zip invented the category a few years ago. This is, of course, complete bullsh!t because

  1. Coupa has had full intake since Procurement Independence Day in 2006. You just didn’t know because when Robbie took over the Coupa factory, licensing switched from enterprise size to per user, and the cost was too much to give non-Procurement users a license so you didn’t see the intake that was there. (And to that effect, if Zip is pricing per user, how is this better?)
  2. Zycus had one of the first modules dedicated to intake, iRequest, over a decade ago

Moreover, everyone has to have Gen-AI intake, because, apparently, using a few drop downs to figure out what a user wants is too difficult for the average iZombie who has been zombified by ChatGPT over-dependence.

While this is useful to parse an initial request from a user — do they have a question, want a report, or want to make a requisition (and if so, is it from a catalog or do you have to go to market) — beyond that initial parsing (which will never achieve an initial parsing accuracy beyond 90%, so at least 1 in every 10 requests will have to be rephrased for the system to get it right), it goes from useful to painful to useless.

Here are a few examples:

  • Policy Question: as we’ve said before, Gen-AI has two strengths: large corpus search and summarization and natural language processing; in this circumstance, if the success rate is 90%, it’s mostly useful, but to be honest, if you know the right terminology, elastic search will work just as well, retrieve the exact clause, and never hallucinate a response. Summary: sometimes useful.
  • Catalog Buy: good luck with this because you’ll spend at least 5 minutes trying to order a box of gloves, and I kid you not — see this post where we illustrate how it will take you five minutes to explain to the Gormless AI what you want when you could place an order in a well-defined catalog in 15 seconds with 3 words, 1 number, and 4 clicks. Nothing will drive your users to maverick purchasing off of Amazon, BestBuy, and even Walmart faster than a Gen-AI intake portal. Summary: painful.
  • Analytics Request: while it’s great for a simple “how much am I spending on supplier S” (especially if that total exists in a spend cube), the fact that Gen-AI is very bad at math (to the point that you can ask the same question twice in a row and get a different answer), and not so great at parsing very specific requests such as how much did we spend with supplier S on steel products last quarter which makes it all but useless — even Gartner, the ring leaders of the Gen-AI lovefest, have predicted that “conversational analytics” will completely leave the ProcureTech vernacular in two years. Summary: useless.

… but this is just the beginning. We’ll continue with the Source to Pay process in Part II.

In ProcureTech, Stop Caring What Gartner, Forrester, or IDC Thinks!

I shouldn’t have to address this again, but every year multiple vendors reach out and ask how to get on these vendors maps because they believe it’s the only way to get more market visibility and/or be selected by certain customers, including you. It’s not the only way to get visibility and if a vendor can’t convince a potential customer from thinking that only map companies are good, I’ll tell them this right now — that’s not a customer they want (because that vendor will be out on the renewal with whatever vendor overtakes them in the map when the CPO changes in 3 years, because companies without vision to look beyond a meaningless map don’t keep real talent, and only real talent will identify and select the best solution and ensure that solution is kept over time).

But I digress — this post is about you, the potential customer, and why you need to STOP caring what Gartner, Forrester, or IDC thinks.

First of all, we’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: It’s NOT the Analyst Firm. It’s the Analyst!.

In addition to all of the skillsets and education that an analyst needs to have to get it right, which we covered in detail in that post, the analyst needs a lot of relevant experience, and history in the ProcureTech space, to make sense of the ProcureTech world today. Ask yourself: how many of the analysts with the right education have at least 10 years in our space? The answer is very few. How many have 20 years in (independent) analyst roles? You can count them on your fingers. I know of myself, Jon Hansen, Pierre Mitchell, and Chris Sawchuk with 20 years of (independent) analyst experience in our space and a deep technical (STEM) education. Everyone else who started covering this space day in, day out two decades ago has moved on or retired. Now, of these analysts, how many have also built actual solutions in the ProcureTech space, connecting the dots between the education, theory, and practice? Two of us — myself and Jon Hansen. (But we should note that Pierre and Chris spent part of their careers on solution advisory consulting and implementation guidance, and have deep knowledge about the implementation and integration requirements, which is also very unique and useful in technology selection.)

Now remember the second point: Vendors Have Lured Big Analyst Firms Astray and that you’re not getting a map of the best solutions, but the best solutions from the analyst firm’s pool of vendor sponsors and research subscribers, where the reality is that only the big, established, cash-rich companies can afford the high-priced subscriptions that keep them in front of the overworked analysts who have to spend over half of their time taking inquiries or keeping high paying subscription customers happy. (Whereas analysts at smaller firms or independents get to focus on studying and understanding the solutions, not general inquiries or whether or not the contract [or pricing model] is good.)

This means that these big firm analysts are not spending a lot of time, if any, looking at the up-and-coming mid-sized companies that have not only been around long enough to develop mature enterprise solutions, but solutions that are more modern, more powerful, more usable, and more intelligent (with embedded analytics, RPA, and the right AI for the task at hand), and possibly (much) better for you. Moreover, if the enterprise is a mid-market company, or able to go with a best-of-breed as a bolt-on to their enterprise ProcureTech platform, they’ll never know about the majority of these solutions (as only the overfunded startups will have the money to get the big analyst firm attention, and these vendors often have more financial stability problems than the smaller vendors who are bootstrapping or taking minimal funding and actually have stable, happy, paying customers keeping them afloat).

Third, and most important, it’s not the best rated solution, it’s the best solution for your organization. Not only is it the case that this solution is very likely not on a map of only 20 companies (when there might be 100 companies that offer that solution), but it might also be the case that it is the lowest ranked solution on those maps — especially when these maps tend to rate solutions on a lot of subjective factors that match what the analyst thinks are the most relevant for an average organization, whereas you are a specific organization which has a specific set of relevant factors that you care about, with specific requirements for those factors. The more divergence between your factors and the analysts’, and your scale and theirs, the worse the map is for your needs, and the worse the solution you select will be.

The only maps you should care about are those that rank solutions solely on the tech capabilities and/or the customer rankings. But only so far as potential solution identification, not selection. Maps that concentrate on pure tech (like Spend Matters Solution Map) allow you to identify vendors that have the tech foundations, giving you a starting pool, but don’t allow you to identify vendors that have a solution — because a solution is tech and appropriate process support and integration capability and support and culture and whatever else transforms another piece of potential shelfware into a solution that will be used daily by your employees.

Note that we used the word “potential” for a reason. No map (including Spend Matters) is complete, so you will need to look at multiple sources (like ProcurementSoftware.site and the upcoming Art of Procurement ProcureTech 100) to put together a complete list of vendors to consider. Then you will have to cross reference with real analyst vendor write-ups (which can include the hundreds of write-ups here on this site if one or more of your potential finalists are included) to whittle down that list to the best starting set for your best practice technology RFP (of which we have a lot of advice on how to write that on this site as well).

At the end of the day, it’s about what solution will work for you, not about which solution is on which map!

Don’t Get Misled By Overly Simplistic Comparisons!

A recent post on LinkedIn on Coupa vs. I-Valua that implies it’s always Coupa vs I-valua or that Coupa is better is missing the point entirely. So much so, that the doctor had to call it out (see the initial LinkedIn response here) because it ends up being very deceptive (even if that wasn’t the intent).

The post made a very simple comparison between Coupa vs. I-Valua in big graphical format that basically said the following:

Coupa I-Valua
1 Billion in Annual Sales, inc. 2006 200 Million in Annual Sales, inc. 2000
Considered Innovation Leader Can Be Customized to Specific Needs
Generally Good Customer References Customers Have Mixed Success

So much wrong with this!

1) Revenue size is in no way indicative of a company’s particular ability to serve YOU. As long as the company is financially stable and has enough support staff for an organization of your size, that’s all you care about. (And it’s obvious they both do since once a company surpasses 100 Million in annual sales, it can serve the vast majority of enterprise clients.)

1b) Neither is time in business relevant once the company has been in business long enough to have a mature solution.

2) “Considered the Innovation Leader” is either opinion, not fact, or bland, marketing BS. By who? The market at large? Well, guess what, in this scenario neither Coupa nor I-valua qualify — Zip is the current darling of ProcureTech. (But don’t go there … please … don’t go there! [Or we’ll have to rip into that assumption too. For now, we’ll be content in reminding you that, despite what Zip claims, there are NO FREE RFPs.] To keep it short and sweet, Zip’s S2P capabilities are still relatively non-existent as it was built as an orchestration platform to connect existing systems and make them work better, and what they offer to plug the gaps you don’t have is not anywhere close to Best in Class.)

3) As Joel was also quick to point out in the comments, good customer references depends upon who you ask (and many of us who have been in the space a long time know that both vendors have very happy customers, some unhappy [former] customers, and customers who are generally satisfied (but wouldn’t go out of their way to give a recommendation). At Spend Matters, where I developed the Source-to-Contract Solution Maps, in the first release, I-valua was top dog and Coupa was average on the customer ratings. As more references poured in, I-valua dropped down to average and Coupa climbed slowly. In other words, both have great customer references, both have average customer references, and both sets of providers have a customer base with mixed success. (And you can’t always blame the company for the success or failure, both sell very advanced solutions and sometimes customers insist on a module they aren’t ready for.)

Furthermore this comparison misses multiple key points that need to be taken into consideration in any comparison, which include, but are definitely not limited to:

4) Simplification is key — and both platforms can simplify extensively! However, the approach is different — Coupa, in simple terms, gives you default configurations that are easy and widely adopted. I-valua built the infinitely customizable platform, and YOU have to work through that process to get it simple. In technical terms, I-valua was built for power users, Coupa for tech novices, but both can be configured to a middle ground.

5) There are more than 2 suites! While Coupa is a finalist in most deals (due to market size), depending on the industry and geography, the final “2” could also include SAP Ariba (yes, still), Jaggaer, GEP, Zycus, Oracle, Corcentric (Determine) or Synertrade, especially in enterprise deals, with another half dozen or so smaller suites emerging in the mid-market. And, for a subset of those deals, Coupa is definitely NOT the best. Sometimes it’s not even close!

5b) While Coupa is undisputedly one of the indirect (sourcing) market leaders, it is still very weak in direct sourcing compared to some of its peers (especially when compared to emerging players built for direct from the ground up). Classically, it had no direct support. The Trade Extensions acquisition gave it support in advanced sourcing and the Llamasoft acquisition gave it direct support in supply chain demand planning, but direct was never at Coupa’s core. For direct industries, it makes a difference. (To be fair, most of Coupa’s peers weren’t built for direct either, but Jaggaer acquired Pool4Tool, I-valua acquired and rebuilt DirectWorks in their platform from the ground up, GEP built NEXXE for supply chain to supplement its weak direct capabilities in SMART, and Synertrade was built from the ground up for direct – one of the few suites that was.)

I could go on, but, with over 666 companies to choose from, it’s never just Coupa vs. someone else, or I-vlaua vs something else. Sometimes neither of them should be in the room. Evaluate the alternatives. And do so after you know your core requirements, as that’s what you need to narrow down to a relevant pool of providers.

And also, you need to consider your sources when you see very simplistic one-side comparisons like these. While there may not be intentional bias, the relative knowledge the author has of different solutions will weight the comparison if the author is not an analyst who has rigorously, and objectively, weighted each platform side by side on its technical merits alone! (Which the doctor did for six years in this case, along with many of the other big names listed above.) (The Spend Matters solution map was a deep technical solution map with over 600 areas of feature/function/process evaluation on the tech axis [and dozens of questions on the customer axis] for a reason. Comparisons are NEVER this easy between suites and sometimes the usual market leader, for your organization, is the default market loser.)

In this situation, the post author’s company does a LOT of Coupa-related platform advisory, the post author has experience with Coupa that predates that in professional CPO or equivalent roles, and is one of the few consultants out there who has a good understanding of the Coupa platform. (And, by the way, there aren’t many of these consultants, especially when you consider that Coupa doesn’t really know Coupa anymore! The only two employees who knew the entire platform end-to-end, that contains over 20 acquisitions over the years, left last year. And the last few years also saw the departure of key personnel from acquisitions that gave them their advanced analytics, optimization, and risk capabilities. As for the doctor, he’s been following Coupa since Procurement Independence Day and consulted for, advised, or did diligence on half their acquisitions over the years. He’s one of the few that probably now knows the core of Coupa better than Coupa, and knows when someone, like the post author, knows a platform well.)

So if you need help identifying the right vendors to consider, and guidance on how you should be comparing them, seek out the niche analyst firms and independent analysts who have been covering the space for over two decades — they’ll give you the right list of vendors to look at, the right factors to consider, and can even help you craft the right RFP. (Unlike the big firms who just publish the same maps with the same vendors who happen to get a ranking that often just happens to be highly correlated to how much they pay the firm. [Remember, vendors have lured big analyst firms astray.])  And when you need help on a shortlist, seek out the consultants who have actually implemented multiple players on that list for their advice.

Forget Best in Class, Hype, or Futurism — If You Want To Improve, Mature!

As you know, and as we’ve written about repeatedly, the hype cycles for orchestration and Gen-AI are in full swing (even though both should be declining, they are both picking up steam, likely due to the ridiculous amount of money spent on marketing — which includes vendors buying analyst studies and reports that focus on areas where they look good).

Consultancies are not only trying to promote and sell you these technologies as a panacea for all your technology ills, but also trying to tell you that it’s what the best-in-class do and, by the way, that if you want to be best-in-class, you have to upgrade all of your processes (with their help) to those that the best-in-class use (whatever that means).

Furthermore, both are trying to tell you what the Future of Procurement is in 2030, 2035, 2040, etc.

And the reality is that NONE of this helps you. Not one bit.

As we have repeatedly pointed out, most of the currently hyped technology is still in experimental/beta stages. This is not technology that will help you mature. In fact, if you are not an industry leader, and mature in your processes, it may actually hold you back because you need to be a mature industry leader with your Procurement organization running smoothly to have the time and experience to properly evaluate these technologies and where they might fit in your organization.

Furthermore, every organization is different. As a result, what is a best practice for one organization may not be a best process for another. In fact, it might not even be relevant. While you will need to improve your processes, and streamline them for digitization, there is no set of fixed processes you can just plug and play and succeed.

And, don’t pardon my French, why the fuck would you care about what Procurement will be like in 5, 10, 15, 25 years. That does NOT solve your problem today. You care about what a better organization would like today and how to get there. That’s it. Just like the journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step (and possibly a single kick in the ass), the path to success is continual improvement, and, simply put, doing better tomorrow than you are doing today.

This means that the key to success is good old maturity levels, current state assessments, and simple step-by-step plans to get from one level to another. Nothing fancy. Nothing tech-centric. And definitely nothing hyped!

While the doctor admits he did get a little tired of the plethora of these maturity maps that appeared in rapid succession in the late 2000s and early 2010s, including the one he did, it was much preferable to today where the dearth of these, and simple advice, is deafening. The help that is desperately needed is not there — replaced by (Gen-AI generated) (Gen-)AI and orchestration hype, not how they can (and cannot) support the solutions you need.

[Plus, let’s not forget that analyst firms and consultancies tend to ignore government regulations and industry compliance (except in country-specific studies), day-to-day pain points (because they aren’t sexy and won’t sell the hype), and, unless they can make a quick-buck (or get a major uptick in eyeballs), changing global conditions that require (temporary) supply chain pivots.]

So, if you truly want to improve, find a maturity model that walks you through the process and knowledge improvements you need to

  1. get to where you should have been when you started Procurement
  2. get to where you should be today
  3. prepare for the next 3 to 5 years (since no one looks beyond that anymore)
  4. slowly build out a foundation that will take you beyond that (without another massive investment)

That’s it. That’s how you make progress. And how you do it without flushing Millions of Dollars down the (Big X) consulting toilet.

Need a starting point? You can still download the classic paper the doctor wrote back in 2012, that was sponsored by BravoSolution (acquired by Jaggaer), on Taking the First Step on Your Next Level Supply Management Journey which describes the levels of maturity from standardization and complexity reduction (which is typically the first step an organization takes on its journey), to operational excellence (which is typically the second step an organization takes on its journey), to strategic business enablement (which is when it typically becomes best in class).

If you do a web search, you will find others from the big consultancies, but this gives you an idea of what to look for in a model that you can build a progress plan on. Where do you start, where will go next, and where do you want to end up. Note that a good model is tech free. Tech should support your growth, not the other way around. (In other words, it’s never Tech-First or AI-First, it’s solution first, and then you identify the right tech.)

And if you need help with a current state assessment, or flushing out a roadmap from one level to the next, or where you are now to standardization and complexity reduction, hire a niche consultancy who will take a no-nonsense approach to get you there at a reasonable cost. (This shouldn’t cost millions of dollars in a transformation project. Depending on your organizational size and complexity, somewhere in the low six figures should typically be enough to get your started, or mid to high five figures if you want to just focus on a few core areas at a time. But definitely NOT seven figures. That comes during the transformation process once you have identified the tech you need, and NOT the tech everyone is trying to shove down the proverbial throat.)