Category Archives: rants

DEAR ENTERPRISE PROCUREMENT SOFTWARE BUYER: THERE ARE NO FREE RFPs!

This originally published June 29 (2024) and is being reprinted due to how important it is to remember as you enter a new budgetary year and seek out new technology.

This shouldn’t have to be said (again), but apparently it does since Zip has relaunched the FREE RFP madness in Source-to-Pay (that began in 2006 when Procuri first aggressively launched the Sourcing, Supplier Management, Contract Management, and Spend Analysis RFPs) with an RFP that is intake heavy, orchestrate light, process deficient, and, like many RFPs before, completely misses some of the key points when going to market for a technology solution. (Especially since there isn’t a single FREE RFP template from a vendor that isn’t intrinsically weighted towards the vendor’s solution, as it’s always written from the viewpoint of what the vendor believes is important.)

the doctor has extensively written about RFPs and the RFP process here on SI in the past, but, at a high level, a good RFP specifies:

  • your current state,
    it does NOT leave this out leaving the vendor to guess your technical and process maturity
  • what you need the solution to do
    NOT just a list of feature/functions
  • what ecosystem you need the solution to work in
    NOT just a list of protocols or APIs that must be supported
  • where the data will live
    and, if in the solution, how you will access it (for free) for exports and off-(vendor-)site backups, do NOT leave this out
  • what support you need from the vendor
    NOT just whether the vendor offers integration / implementation services and their hourly / project rate
  • any specific services you would like from the vendor
    NOT a list of all services you might want to buy someday
  • what the precise scope of the RFP is if it is part of a larger project
    NOT a blanket request for the vendor to “address what they can”
  • what regulations and laws you are subject to that the vendor must support
    NOT just an extensive list of every standard and protocol you can think of
  • what languages and geographies and time zones you need supported
  • any additional requirements the vendor will need to adhere to based on the regulations you or the vendor would be subject to and additional requirements your organization puts in place
    NOT endless forms of every question you can think of that might never be relevant
  • your goal state,
    it does NOT leave the vendor to guess what you are looking for (note that “goal” defines what you want to achieve, it is up to the vendor to define how they will help you achieve it)
  • what (management) processes you use to work with vendors — and —
  • what collaboration tools you make available to vendors and what your expectations are of them

And it is only created after a current state assessment, goal state specification, and key use-case identification so that it is relatively clear on organization needs and vendors have no excuse to provide a poor response.

Furthermore, a good RFP does NOT contain:

  • requests for features/functions you don’t currently need (but you can ask for a roadmap)
  • specific requests for a certain type of AI/ML/Analytics/Optimization/etc. when you don’t even know what that tech actually does — let the vendor tell you, and then show you, how their tech solves their problem
    (after all, there are almost NO valid uses for Gen-AI in S2P)
  • specific requests on the technology stack, when it doesn’t matter if they use Java or Ruby, host on AWS or Azure, etc.
  • requests for audits (tech, environmental, social welfare, etc.) when you haven’t selected the vendor for an award, pending a successful negotiation
  • requests for service professional resumes when you haven’t selected the vendor for an award that includes professional service, pending a successful negotiation
  • requests for financials, when you haven’t selected the vendor for an award pending a successful negotiation
    (because these last three [3] will scare some vendors off and possibly prevent the best vendor for you from even acknowledging your RFP exists)

And, a good RFP, goes to the right providers! This means that you need to select providers with the right type of solution you need before you issue the RFP, and then only issue to providers that you know offer that type of solution. (You can use analyst reports here if you like to identify potential vendors, but remember these maps cannot be used for solution selection! You will then need to do some basic research to make sure the vendor appears to fit the criteria.)

And if there are a lot of potential providers, you may need to do a RFI — Request for Interest / Intent (to Bid) — where you specify at a high level what the RFP you intend to issue is for, and if you get a lot of positive responses, do an initial call with the providers to confirm not only interest but the solution offered is relevant to your organization. (After all, at the end of the day, as The Revelator is quick to point out, it’s as much about the people behind the technology as the technology itself if you expect to be served by the provider.)

And even if you don’t need to an RFI before the RFP, you should still reach out to the vendors you want to respond, let them know the RFP is coming, and let them know you’ve done your research, believe they are one of the top 5 vendors, and are looking forward to their response. (Otherwise, you might find you don’t get as many responses as you’d hope for as vendors prioritize RFPs that they believe they have a good shot at winning vs. random unexpected RFP requests from unknown companies.)

At the end of the day, if you don’t know:

  • what the main categories of S2P+ solutions are
  • what the typical capabilities of a solution type are, what’s below, average or above
  • who the vendors are
  • how to determine your current state of process maturity (and how that compares to the industry, market, and best-in-class) and what a solution could do for you
  • how to evaluate a vendor’s solution
  • how to evaluate a vendor overall
  • how to write a good RFP that balances core business, tech, and solution requirements to maximize your chances of finding a good vendor for you

and the reality is that you most likely don’t (as less than 10% of Procurement departments are world class, as per Hackett research going back to the 2000s where they also determined the typical journey for an organization to become best-in-class in Procurement was 8 years, and that’s the minimum requirement to write a world-class technology RFP), then you should engage help from an expert to help you craft that RFP, be it an independent consultant or firm that specializes in Procurement transformation.

It is also critically important that the firm you select to help you needs to be neutral (not aligned with one solution provider who refers implementations to them in return for potential customer referrals) and that the firm does not rely on analyst maps either!

If you want help, the doctor has relationships with leading, neutral, firms on both sides of the pond who can help you, and who he will work with to make sure the technology / solution component is precisely what you need to get the right responses from vendors. Simply contact the doctor (at) sourcinginnovation [dot] com if you would like help getting it right.

Simply put, getting help with your technology RFP is the best insurance money you can spend. When you considering that, all in, these solutions will cost seven (7) or eight (8) figures over just a few years, you should be willing to spend 5% to 10% of the initial contract value to make sure you get it right. (Especially when there isn’t a single Private Equity Firm that wouldn’t invest in a technology player without doing a six [6], if not seven [7] figure due diligence first … and sometimes the firm will do this and then walk away! At least in your case, when you work with someone who can identify multiple potential vendors, you’re certain to find one at the end of the day.)

Are 45% of Enterprise Leaders Asleep at the Wheel?

According to a short recent article over on Supply Chain Brain on “Next-Gen Supply Chains: The Transformative Role of Supply Chain Leaders in Today’s Business” which quoted a GEP and Economist Study on “Next-Gen Supply Chains: The Transformative Role of Supply-Chain Leaders in Today’s Business”, 55% of enterprises anticipate a major supply chain disruption to strike at any time.

Are 45% of enterprise leaders asleep at the wheel? The chance of a disruption has been getting worse by the day for at least the last decade (if not the last two)! In 2014, Reslinc tracked almost 300 major global supply chain disruptions across natural disasters, factory explosions, labor disputes, power outages, chemical spills and geopolitical upheavals that impacted the supply chains of multiple global companies. That’s almost one major disruption a day, every day!

In 2013, at least 8 out of 10 companies had experienced a major supply chain disruption in the last two years (Supply Chain XChange). By 2014, one year later, 3 in 4 supply chain professionals admitted they experienced a chronic supply chain disruption. (APICS) Since then, natural disasters (fires, hurricanes, tsunamis, etc.) have increased year over year. Geopolitical conflicts, including wars, are on the rise. So are droughts, and now we have the double shipping whammy of the reduced capacity of the Panama canal part of the year and the ongoing Red Sea Crisis. We also have sanctions with unintended consequences, power shifting to the BRICs, world class pandemics, and a country Big X Consultancies made us 100% dependent on willing to shut down entire cities at a moment notice on an impossible zero-tolerance policy. We’re literally at the point where every company has an almost 100% chance of experiencing a considerable disruption in the next 12 months.

So I ask again, are 45% of enterprise executives asleep at the wheel?

Dumb and Dead Company: The Series

For your convenience, here are links to the complete series, classic and modern:

2008 Series

Dumb Company

How Dumb is Your Company
Dumb Company
Dumb Company (The Lyrics)
Dumb Moments in Business not Aerospace, Automotive, or Bailout Related
Why Some Companies are Being Dumb

Dead Company

Dead Company
Dead Company II: If You’re Hoarding Cash …
Dead Company III: Fear is the Enemy
Dead Company IV: Avoiding the GraveYard
Dead Company V: More Ways to Avoid the GraveYard
Dead Company VI: New SI Offerings
Dead Company VII: Even More Ways to Avoid the GraveYard

Your Marketing Really, Really Sucks

Marketing is NOT Optional
How to Build a Bat House
The Brain Gives Pinky a Marketing Lesson
Web Marketer, Don’t Be Misled!

The Market Dilemma

The Market Dilemma I: The Key to Getting Out of this Recession
The Market Dilemma II: Vendors Provide the Vision
The Market Dilemma III: Consultants Provide the Clarity
The Market Dilemma IV: Buyers Win the Battles

the doctor Can Help!

Vendor Void? the doctor Can Help!
Consulting Confusion? the doctor Can Help!
Buyer Bereft? the doctor Can Help

2024 Series

Prelude

Distant Early Warning: An “Avoiding the Graveyard” Prelude

Dumb Company

How Dumb Is Your Company?
You Admit You Might Be a Dumb Company. How do you avoid the fork in the road that leads to the Graveyard? Part 1
You Admit You Might Be a Dumb Company. How do you avoid the fork in the road that leads to the Graveyard? Part 2

Dead Company

Is Your Potential Vendor a Dead Company Walking? Part 1
Is Your Potential Vendor a Dead Company Walking? Part 2
So You Admit You Might Be A Dead Company Walking. How Do You Avoid The Graveyard? Part 1
So You Admit You Might Be A Dead Company Walking. How Do You Avoid The Graveyard? Part 2
So You Admit You Might Be A Dead Company Walking. How Do You Avoid The Graveyard? Part 3
So You Admit You Might Be A Dead Company Walking. How Do You Avoid The Graveyard? Part 4
So You Admit You Might Be A Dead Company Walking. How Do You Avoid The Graveyard? Part 5
So You Admit You Might Be A Dead Company Walking. How Do You Avoid The Graveyard? Part 6
So You Admit You Might Be A Dead Company Walking. How Do You Avoid The Graveyard? Part 7
So You Admit You Might Be A Dead Company Walking. How Do You Avoid The Graveyard? Part 8

Zombie Company

Zombie Companies Exist Too!

Smart Company

We Want To Be A Smart Company. What Else Can We Do Part 1
We Want To Be A Smart Company. What Else Can We Do Part 2
We Want To Be A Smart Company. Is That It? Part 1
We Want To Be A Smart Company. Is That It? Part 2

M&A Mania

Marketplace Madness
M&A Mania is Coming Again … but will it be the same as last time?

Software Success (or Lack thereof)

Don’t Fall for the Buzzwords!
Demystifying the Marketing Madness for you!
The Procurement Space is Filled with Hogwash! It’s Time We Start Calling It Out!
Want Procurement Technology Success? This is Your Anthem!
Why Do Successful Solution Providers Ruin Everything By Becoming Tech Companies?
Technology DOES NOT Solve Your Talent Problem!

It’s Not AI (First,Led,Powered,etc.) or Autonomous. It is Solution with Augmented Intelligence!

By now you know our stance on Gen-AI (and how it should be relegated to the rubbish heap from which it came) because it’s not about “AI”, it’s about outcome. And outcome requires a real, predictable, usable solution that helps Human Intelligence (HI!) make the right decision. Such a solution is one that uses tried and true algorithms that support tried and true processes that provide a human with the insight needed to make the right decision at the time, every time a decision needs to be made.

This requires a solution that walks the human user through the process, step by step, and presents them with the information required to make a decision as to whether to progress to another step, what the next step is, and any conditions that need to be put on that next step. This requires a solution that automatically runs all of the typically relevant analysis, on all of the available data, and presents the insight, along with any typical decisions (as [a] default recommendation[s]) made on any similar situations that can be found in the organizational history.

Automation should only occur in situations the organization has defined as acceptable according to well defined, human reviewed, and verified rules. Not default vendor rules or unverified probabilities or unverified random computations from a random algorithm. A good solution is one that walks a user through the process, often allowing each step to be completed with a single choice or click. It’s not one that makes the choice for the user, which may or may not be the right one, but one that helps the user makes the right choice. It might seem like a subtle difference, but it is a very important one.

Even though an AI-powered autonomous solution might seem to make the right decision over 90% (or 95%) of the time, it doesn’t mean it actually is. If it looks right, it might be a good decision, but it doesn’t mean it’s a good decision for the organization at the time, or the best decision that can be made. Only human review, at the time, can make that decision. A good solution runs all the analysis it can, summarizes the results, and lets a human verify the data for any recommendation made by the system.

To better understand the the subtlety, consider a situation where the organization lets the system automatically re-auction all regularly purchased products and commodities for manufacturing or MRO where the price is typically constant over time using a lowest bidder takes all e-Auction that results in the auto-generation and auto e-Signature of a one year contract. Now, most of the time this is probably going to work okay, but imagine you let it run on full auto-pilot and in the e-Auction queue is your regular RAM contract that expired three days after a major RAM plant factory fire (that happens about once every decade if you trace back through the last forty years), and prices have just skyrocketed about 50%. Prices which would drop back down as soon as the plant comes back online in three months. Locking in a full year contract would result in excessive cost overruns on the items for almost nine months longer than necessary, instead of just three months or so. A human would know to buy the bare minimum on the spot market at overly inflated rates and wait until the market stabilized before running an e-Auction to lock in the next contract. But a system told to just re-auction and re-order at every contract expiration would do this that. It wouldn’t know that the current market rates are just temporary, why, and how to change course. This is just one example where over-automation and AI will lead to failure without Human Intervention.

A good system presents the user with the products/commodities that are typically automatically auctioned, the history of costs, the current market costs, the recommendation for auto-sourcing and term, the expected results, and whether the recommendation is for the auction to auto-award and contract or, when the auction is complete, pause and include a human in the loop to make a final decision. A well designed system minimizes the work and input required by a human, eliminating all the tactical data analysis and e-paperwork, making it easy to make the right strategic decision without a lot of effort. Technology isn’t about trying to replace human intelligence (which it can’t), but about eliminating unnecessary drudgery or computation (“thunking”) that humans are not good at (or don’t have the time for), so that humans can focus on strategic decisions and value add.

That’s why the right answer is always a solution with augmented intelligence. Not autonomous AI solutions.

Often the Best Solution is the Simplest Solution!

One of the downsides of the Gen-AI mania is the constant messaging that everything is complicated and the only technology that can make it easy is over-engineered, power hungry, planet killing, Gen-AI technology that has to consume mountains of data, be fed by carefully crafted creative prompts (that can take hours, days, and even weeks of trial and error to get right), and require mountains of effort to acquire, install, train, and tweak such a system. The claims are that only this technology can solve modern Procurement problems, when nothing could be further from the truth.

The reality is that not all problems require complex solutions. Some require very simple solutions. India recently provided us with an example of that. In a recent article on how Farmers can use WhatsApp for Paddy Procurement, India presented a rather simple solution to its Paddy Procurement problem, where it needed to simplify the acquisition of rice.

When a large amount of product needs to be procured in a whole lot of small batches, coordination is not easy, especially from suppliers who don’t have the same modern tech. Now, imagine your suppliers are not corporations, but small farms where the most advanced tech might be the cell phone they are holding to make calls. As a result, they don’t have any complicated sales and order management systems, no ability to process XML or EDI, and even using a sophisticated portal on a small screen is a challenge (even if they have a fairly modern smartphone).

However, they have WhatsApp, so the state government has adopted a methodology to support the farmers selling their wares through that platform. When they are ready to sell, all they have to do is text “hi” to a given number, enter their Aadhaar (ID) number, the nearest procurement center, and the number of bags they want to sell. The platform will then provide them with three dates and times, they choose one, and they can then show up, and, without waiting, deliver their bags and get promptly paid. Before, they might have had to wait hours (or all day) if they just showed up, and much longer for payment. Moreover, due to the efficiencies they’ve introduced and other related Procurement efficiencies, the government is able to offer farmers tarpaulin sheets to protect field stock at a 50% subsidy price.

Simple works. Never forget it, and you’ll go further than if you blindly adopt over-promised solutions that under-deliver.