Category Archives: rants

Only Half Of Organizations are Concerned They’re At Risk of Greenwashing. What are the other half smoking?

A recent press release from Ivalua over on the Supply Chain Quarterly site stated that nearly half of organization are concerned they’re at risk of unintentional greenwashing and that 48% of US organizations are very confident they can accurately report on Scope 3 emissions.

This falls into the same category as half of Procurement leaders expect their budgets to increase and 9% of companies claim to be ready to manage risks posed by AI … ridiculous.

The 52% that feel that Scope 3 reporting is a ‘best-guess’ measurement have it right. There isn’t a single carbon calculator (service) offering that is accurate. Some aren’t bad, and a subset of these will meet the baseline requirements for carbon reporting, but even those that make the baseline cut for reporting aren’t as good as you think. The majority of these work by using country-industry averages computed by third party institutes and agencies, which are then multiplied by the estimated total volume of product coming from the country-industry average adjusted. It could be totally accurate, or it could be totally inaccurate if your supplier is using a significantly older production line technology and using dirtier energy than its peers or, in the best case, was the first supplier in the region to update its production line, switched to primarily renewable energy sources, and found a way to recycle water and minimize fresh water usage.

Plus, with no clear guidance on how to properly calculate your e-Liability, how do you know that you are truly accounting for all of the carbon you are responsible for (in terms of products, logistics, services, etc.) while not taking on carbon that belongs to your supplier (that they are trying to pass on to you).

Also, if you’re passing on your calculation to a third party, or even worse, to a supplier, how do you know that, if there are multiple potential third party region-industry estimates to choose from, that the third party isn’t choosing the absolute worst (so you will believe you need their carbon reduction consulting services) or that the supplier isn’t choosing the absolute best when answering your RFX (when neither of these estimates are correct).

The reality is that, even if you use a third party, your scope 3 calculations are acceptable (but not necessarily accurate) approximations at best, but likely of little value the majority of the time and your true knowledge of whether or not your supplier:

  • uses renewable energy
  • recycles or minimizes (fresh) water usage
  • uses efficient production processes that minimize direct (production) and indirect (energy and [fresh]water) carbon
  • actively looks for ways to be sustainable

doesn’t exist unless they have been audited on-site by you or a third party service that you trust. And accepting anything less is accepting greenwashing (or some variant of) to some degree.

And the only way you are truly going to reduce your Scope 3 is to:

  • minimize demand for consumables, and use as many renewables as you can
  • focus on renewable, or at least recyclable, content in your products
  • work with suppliers to optimize processes
  • invest in suppliers (possibly through long-term contractual commitments) to upgrade to modern processes that will minimize their carbon production
  • etc.

Roughly Half a Trillion Dollars Will Be Wasted on SaaS Spend This Year and up to One Trillion Dollars on IT Services. How Much Will You Waste?

Before we continue, yes, that is TRILLION, numerically represented as 1,000,000,000,000, repeated twice in the title and yes we mean US (as in United States of America) dollars!

Gartner projects that IT spend will surpass 5 Trillion this year. When you consider that 30% of IT spend is usually for software, and that one third (or more) of software spend is wasted (for unused licenses, which is why we have a whole category of IT and SaaS specialists that analyze your out-of-control SaaS and software spend and typically find 30% to 40% overspend in a few days), that means that roughly half a trillion dollars will be wasted on software this year.

Even worse, Gartner projects that spending on IT Services will reach 1.5 Trillion. And the waste here could be two thirds! Now, we all know that you need IT services to implement, integrate, and maintain those IT systems you buy. But how much do you need? And how much should you pay? Consider that an intermediate software developer should be making 150K a year (or 75/hour), that says that an intermediate implementation specialist shouldn’t be making any more than that, and not billed at more than 3 times that (or 225/hour). But how much are you being billed for relatively inexperienced implementation consultant, with maybe a few years of overall experience and maybe six months on the system that you are installing? the doctor knows that rates of $300 to $500 are not uncommon for these resources that are oversold and overcharged for.

But this isn’t the worst of it. As per our upcoming article Fraud And Waste Are Not The Same Thing, many implementation “partners” will try to get all they can get and make sure that when you go in for a penny, you go in for a pound and they will push for:

  • frequent change orders during implementation, usually billed at excessively high day rates as they have to “divert resources” or “work overtime”
  • unnecessary customizations or real-time integrations that are an extensive amount of work (and cost) when out-of-the-box or daily flat-file synchs are more than sufficient
  • extensive “process evaluation” or “process transformation” processes that are well beyond what you need to eat up consulting hours
  • extensive “best practice” education when your practices are good enough for now and/or those best practices are already encoded in the system you just bought and paid a pretty penny for and just following the default process gives you the same education

That will often double to triple the cost. But that’s not the worst of it. As per comments the doctor has made on LinkedIn, he regularly hears stories of niche providers losing 200K deals because customers said their quote was too low because all the Big X companies quoted over 1,000K for what should be 100K worth of work in their view (and, right or wrong, if a niche firm comes in less with a detailed proposal, they should be evaluated — maybe the Big X, with a very general request, over estimated your requirements and the effort, or maybe the niche firm completely underestimated it — how will you know if you don’t evaluate all the responses?). Literally. This is because, as the doctor has noted in previous posts and comments on LinkedIn:

  • they don’t have always have the talent in advanced tech (and even The Prophet has noted their lack of talent in areas of advanced tech in multiple LinkedIn posts, though he has been much more diplomatic than the doctor in discussing their lack thereof; but he did note in a 2024 advice post that consultancies are going to have a hard time attracting talent this year) — for every area, an average firm will have a team leader who’s a superstar, two or three handpicked lieutenants who are above average, and then 20 to 40 benchwarmers who are junior and not always worth the rate they are charging);  now, as with every general observation, there are exceptions (with some Big X recently acquiring a number of best-in-class technology, analytics, and AI vendors that give them top-notch world class talent, and others actively recruiting top talent form the best tech firms, but every firm is different, and, most importantly, every need is different — it’s up to you to fully qualify your need, review the proposal carefully, and vet the proposed talent, otherwise, it’s your fault if you overpay, fail miserably, and don’t get value
  • some of these firms have an incredible overhead — they got big in good times and built posh offices to house the partners making more than top lawyers who have a lifestyle to maintain (or, in some cases, they just acquired expensive real estate in premiere locations)
  • they don’t always have the knowledge of, or experience in, modern tools — some of which are ten times more powerful than last generation tools; this, of course, means that, in these situations, Big X benchwarmers are using last generation tools which take ten times the manual labour to extract value from
  • etc.

Unless you want to pay 1K an hour, at some of these firms, you’re not guaranteed getting that one superstar resource trying to be the front end to two dozen projects that his three lieutenants are trying to manage, all of which are staffed by junior to intermediate individuals who can barely follow the three to five year old playbook.   (While if you chose a different Big X firm that just acquired a whole consultancy with dozens of top analysts, it’s a different story.)

There’s a reason that The Prophet predicted in his 9th prediction that SaaS Management Solutions [will] Start to Eat Services Procurement Tech and that many companies will go in house if they have tech expertise. Because he realizes that these consultancies will have a hard time not only hiring, but retaining, tech talent when they have hiring freezes, salary freezes, and reduced engagements as more and more companies can’t afford the ridiculous rates they’ve been charging recently. (Companies may not have had a choice during COVID where it was implement on-line collaboration and B2B tech or perish, but now they do.)

But there are still many companies who will, when they encounter a (perceived) tech need, immediately pick up the phone and call their favorite Big X firm and bring them in to help them understand who to bring in for an engagement, instead of widening the net to niche providers who might be 3 to 5 times cheaper, and who will deliver results at least as good, if not better, or, if their proposals won’t cut it, will validate when that multi-million proposal is a great value and will deliver the expected ROI.

Now, again, the doctor would like to stress that, despite how much he insists they are usually not the right solution for specialist advanced tech implementations that aren’t the enterprise systems and suites they usually implement, that Big X are not all bad, and sometimes worth many times more than the high fees they charge. [See when should you use Big X?] Most of these companies started off as management/operational/finance/strategy consultants and grew big because they were one of the best, and in certain domains, each of these companies still are. As they grew, they added more areas and became experts in those.  But no company can, and should, be expected to be an expert in everything!

And while there will be exceptions to the rule (as every one of these companies has some tech geniuses), the reality is that when you need more bodies than there are talented bodies in an entire industry, you’re not going to get them and, because consultancies are not cool when you want to be a tech superstar (and join a startup that becomes a unicorn), the ratio of superstar to above average to average to below average talent in these organizations is much thinner than in multinational tech companies (like Alphabet, Apple, Meta, Microsoft, etc.)  (Because if they were the best of the best, there’s no way they’d lay off 10,000 employees at a time every time the market jitters.)

In short, manage that IT services spend carefully, or you’ll be double paying, triple paying, or worse and providing a big chunk of the roughly ONE TRILLION DOLLARS in IT services overspend that the doctor predicts will happen (again) this year. (Unless, of course, you agree with Doctor Evil who says, why make trillions when we could make … billions. Because that’s exactly what happens when you overpay for software and services. Don’t expect the Big X or Mid-Market to say anything as they get the majority that overspend, and that’s how they stay so profitable.  Plus, they usually need those revenues to deliver what you’re asking for, as ill-defined projects mean they need to make a lot of assumptions and often over engineer to decrease the chance you will be disappointed in the result!  In other words, if you overpay due to your lack of research and preparation, it’s on you. )

Forget Consequence Free. I wanna be Gen-AI Free!

To the tune of Consequence Free by Great Big Sea.

Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Na na-na, na na na-na na na!

Wouldn’t it be great,
if no one ever was redundant?
Wouldn’t it be great,
if we made all the decisions?

I’ve always said,
All the rules are made for bending.
And if I did the right thing,
What’s wrong with that vision?

I wanna be Gen-AI free!
I wanna be where humans always matter.
I wanna be Gen-AI free!
And say: Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Oh! Na na-na, na na na-na na na!

I could really use,
To lose my ethical conscience.
Cause I’m getting sick,
Of feeling angry all the time.

I won’t abuse it,
Yeah I’ve got the best intentions.
For a little bit of anarchy,
But not the hurting kind.

I wanna be Gen-AI free!
I wanna be where humans always matter.
I wanna be Gen-AI free!
And say: Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Oh! Na na-na, na na na-na na na!

Oh! I couldn’t sleep at all last night,
‘Cause I had AI on my mind.
Why can’t we leave it all behind,
You know it could be that easy.

It just takes one person
Wouldn’t it be great,
If the CEO made that call
We could do the work,
And we would never get the slip.

Wouldn’t need to worry about illogic or bad data.
We could slip off the edge,
And never worry about the fall.

I wanna be Gen-AI free!
I wanna be where humans always matter.
I wanna be Gen-AI free!
And say: Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Oh! Na na-na, na na na-na na na!
Oh! Na na-na, na na na-na na na!

the doctor, while an early adopter of SSDO, rule-based RPA, Machine Learning, and other “AI” technologies, is serious here. Gen-AI is garbage at best, bull crap the majority of the time, and toxic waste when it fails. What other technology produces hallucinations, hate speech, and hot (as in stolen) data on a regular basis? What other technology has literally convinced people to commit suicide?

It’s not ready for prime-time, and may never be. Go back to carefully constructed NLP solutions on carefully designed data sets that actually work. We don’t need Artificial Idiocy where you need more training in prompting to have a chance at solving a problem than developers need training in coding to write a reliable deterministic algorithm that actually solves the problem. Sure it seems to work “okay” 90% of the time with normal usage, but what about that 9% of the time it doesn’t or the 1% it fails so drastically it could cost you millions of dollars in direct and indirect damages? Is it worth it? (The answer is NO!)

Some light reading. More can be found by Googling Gen-AI Fails and similar search terms.

It Was Nice to See Procurement Get a USA Today Headline, But …

… it would be nicer still if the article made any sense!

Last month, the USA Today ran an article on How to Optimize the Procurement Lifecycle of Your Business that gave the doctor hope that maybe Procurement would get a sliver of the just desert it deserves. But, alas, the article was yet another example of how the big publications don’t care, don’t actually verify the content, and allow whatever big company gets their attention to push their agenda.

Because SEO has no place in any article on “How to Optimize the Procurement Lifecycle of Your Business”. Sales cycle, maybe. But Procurement cycle? Not a chance!

Let’s back up.

The article starts off by noting that understanding the procurement process is vital to improving cost efficiency, ensuring quality procurement solutions, and staying compliant with regulations, which is all true, and all critical to any business (among other things, but you can’t overwhelm the average reader who’s likely not a Procurement expert). It also notes that the procurement process is fraught with complexities and challenges which is also true, and also critically important for a non-Procurement person to understand.

Then it says that optimizing the procurement process entails the use of modern technologies, insights, and strategies, which gave the doctor hope that maybe it would help an average user understand what kind of technologies the organization needed, what insights the technologies should provide, and what types of procurement strategies the organization might want to consider.

But instead of actually providing these key insights it goes on to say that inefficiencies in procurement management can lead to increased costs, delayed deliveries, and compromised quality, which, while also true, is not that helpful at this point (and should have been listed as examples of the complexities and challenges highlighted above). It used this as a lead in to how modern point-of-sale (POS) systems are instrumental in dealing with inefficiencies, WHAT THE HELL?, which is used as a lead in to a whole section on digital transformation: incorporating SEO for Procurement Optimization, WHAT THE FUCK?

A POS solution is NOT a Procurement solution, and it’s certainly NOT instrumental in dealing with inefficiencies in Procurement management. Procurement is about acquiring the product an organization needs when — and where — it needs it. While a modern POS system can push roll up data into the inventory management system which, in turn, can generate forecasts to feed Procurement, a modern POS system is not necessary because all Procurement needs is sales projections, and if the delivery timeline from the source in Bangladesh or Shanghai is 45 to 60 days, it only needs 60 days of granularity, not sales data by the hour! Logistics will need that granularity to do finer forecasts to push stock where it is needed before it is needed, but NOT Procurement.

But the cardinal sin of this article is claiming that incorporating SEO techniques into the digital transformation strategy of the business can add another dimension to procurement optimization. No NO NO NO NO! The article claims that with SEO techniques, businesses can reach out to a wider pool of global suppliers, which is completely false because THAT’S NOT HOW SEO WORKS! SEO helps people doing searches find sites that match certain keyword searches, and, thus, would only work if the potential supplier has a sales person who is actively using the internet looking for new customers, who is using the keywords that the site has been SEO’d for, and who is searching in the organization’s language and in the organization’s geography (as most search engines prioritize same language results in the region). In other words, the chances of a supplier you might actually consider finding your SEO-optimized site and reaching out to the right person at your organization is only slightly better than you winning the grand prize in a mega-millions lottery.

The proper solution for finding new suppliers is a supplier discovery / network solution like
Apex Analytix,
Graphite Connect,
MFG,
Onventis,
Promena,
ScoutBee,
Supplhi,
supplier.io, and
Tealbook.

NOT SEO!!!

So, even though Procurement is the life blood of the business, when it comes to mainstream coverage, Procurement Don’t Get No Regard, No Regard At All!

14% of Procurement Leaders Have Adequate Talent to Meet Future Needs? Bull Crap!

the doctor has to stop looking at headlines, especially those on surveys of Procurement Leaders. Because there is no way that 14% of companies have adequate talent to meet future Procurement Needs. Why? Because there’s no way that 14% of companies have adequate talent to meet current Procurement Needs. Adding this survey result from Gartner with the recent survey result from Forbes who said that 9% of companies claim to be ready to manage risks posed by AI, and the doctor is starting to wonder who they h3ll they are asking to fill out these surveys … because it’s clear that these people either have no connection to reality, are drowning so deep in despair in their job that the only way they can keep their sanity is to pretend that the future is going to be way better than it is today (even though there’s no way that can be true if the company doesn’t fix the problems it has now because problems in companies multiply faster than European Rabbits in Australia), or are higher than a kite on drugs (as that’s how they deal).

The reality is that just about every company has problems in Procurement around:

  • Tech: they don’t have enough modern Sourcing and Procurement systems, sometimes it’s because they are cheap are not-forward thinking (another problem), other times it’s because they aren’t technologically proficient enough (to even know what they need)
  • Risk: otherwise, there’d be a lot less disruptions (even when pandemics hit as they would be doing more near-sourcing, have backup plans ready to go, etc.)
  • Contracts: ask them where there contracts are, and what they are usually protected from and what they are usually not
  • Logistics: beyond risk, chances are they don’t have the right network for the logistics they need or the right carriers for the network they are forced into
  • Spend Under Management: they aren’t able to do nearly enough projects in a year to address enough significant/strategic/critical spend (either due to lack of talent, tech, turbidness [of spend], etc.)
  • Negotiation: some companies are paying more on contract than the spot market, sometimes this is bad negotiation, sometimes this is lack of insight, but regardless, it’s problematic
  • Forecasting: both actual demand (because you can’t trust Sales & Marketing) and future supply/demand imbalances and prices
  • inventory management: (because JIT sometimes stands for just-in-trouble)
  • Spend Visibility: for every dollar: who, what, when, where, why, and how … they just don’t know
  • etc. etc. etc.

If companies had enough talent today, they wouldn’t have the majority of these problems.

But here’s the thing, even if the mythical company existed that had none of these problems, Procurement is still constantly evolving. The suppliers they need to buy from are constantly evolving. The supply networks from the supplier to the company to their consumers are constantly evolving. Technology is constantly evolving. You don’t even know what’s coming, so you can’t know what skills you need, or if your talent will be ready. (Hint: They won’t. Because, even though we keep telling you, you won’t Train Them! [Even though educated, efficient talent are way more productive, you still cut the training budget first for reasons the doctor can’t fathom!])

In other words, it’s ludicrous for any company in the real world that buys and sells products and services in the real world who is, more than likely, barely treading water today to think they are prepared for tomorrow! (Now, they might be in good shape if they have top talent today, but they still need to keep that talent trained and at the top of their game to have any chance of being ready for tomorrow.)

But one thing this survey exposed is the fundamental problem with surveys — people can overestimate their knowledge or readiness (or score themselves higher than they should because they won’t publicly admit they aren’t doing as well as they could be) and then the analyst firm is stuck publishing the results it collects.  Even if they don’t seem plausible when you dig deep.