Category Archives: rants

How Do You Reconfigure the Global Supply Chain? That’s Easy!

Ever since the pandemic, there’s been quite a few articles about this despite the fact we’ve known the answer for well over a decade. (Or at least SI was giving away the answer, for free, over a decade ago, even though it seems no one was listening.) Or at least some of use have known the answer for well over a decade. So why was no one listening? Why is the answer still not well known? Is it not clear? Is the new generation not looking on their own and wanting the answer spoon fed to them? Are the articles with the solution either too generic, too politically correct, too vague or not actionable?

It’s hard to say, but to make sure this article is not too generic, not too politically correct, not too vague, and not inapplicable, we’re going to be very, very specific, as politically incorrect as possible, as to the point as possible, and actionable in our messaging. And we’re going to keep it as short and sweet as possible so that the message will be clearly understood.

 

Unless you are selling the product to China (/Asia), when sourcing,
FUCK CHINA.

It’s that simple.

 

Risk Mitigation 101 for Buyers is to have two sources of supply because risk mitigation 101 in systems design is no single point of failure. But over the last three decades, we have built a global supply chain where all roads simultaneously end in China and start in China. When there isn’t a single product you buy where a component or raw material doesn’t get produced or processed in China, it doesn’t matter that you use two different distributors or manufacturers for the product as the choke point is still China. Thus, if the factories or ports shut down because of China’s ridiculous “zero tolerance” policy to an unstoppable epidemic (which is not even as lethal as the bird flu if a large majority of your population that can be safely vaccinated is vaccinated); if the shipping industry gets overloaded due to a lack of ships, workforce (see yesterday’s article on how strikes are going to be your biggest source of supply chain disruptions for the next decade), or containers (which happens, especially since there are way more ships carrying goods from China than carrying goods to China, semi full ships will not load containers to take back until completely empty, and this results in many ships sailing back mostly empty); or critical commodities or utilities expected locally become temporarily unavailable to the factory, you, and everyone else in the world relying on that product, are shut down.

There’s a reason that North America used to primarily source products not made in the USA from Mexico or South America. If there was a disruption, you found out sooner. If a factory had a fire, you could fly in, assess the damage, and send in your engineers to help fix it — quickly. If not, you weren’t far from alternate suppliers you could fly down to assess, and if suitable, negotiate with. If there was a transportation backup, it was easier to clean up — you weren’t waiting for ships, you just sent down more trucks or ordered more rail cars.

And the answer should now be obvious:

  • Home-source anything that can be grown / mined / produced at reasonable economy of scale in multiple geographically separated locations in your home “region” (i.e. multiple states in the US; multiple connected countries in the EU)
  • Near-source anything that can grown / mined / produced at reasonable economy of scale in a relatively near-by country or region connected by land where the product can be shipped by rail and truck (Mexico / Central America / Northern parts of South America for the US)
  • Far-(Over-Sea)-Source only what can’t be home-sourced or near-sourced, which should just be raw materials or small components (i.e. there’s no excuse to be manufacturing and importing washing machines, refrigerators, and cars which are super bulky and weighty when there are only a few core components that need extreme specialization [where it would be hard to find another / build a new factory] or materials that need to be processed pre-transport

Which means that if you are sourcing for the Americas, the amount of sourcing that you should be doing from China is likely about 10% of what you’re actually doing, which, at the end of the day, gave you short term savings in exchange for long term debt including, but not limited to:

  • customer churn and angst
    (happy customers seeing value fork over $$$ a lot faster and in greater amounts than those that aren’t, and they aren’t happy when they don’t get their products on time)
  • constantly increasing transportation costs …
    containers went from < 5K to > 30K during the height of COVID, and while they have come back down, they’re still 30% to 50% more on average, and since most ocean going vessels still use HFO (the dirtiest oil there is, FYI), and the global port strikes are resulting in significant wage increase (partially due to significant inflation in many countries), they’re going to keep going up, especially once you factor in those
  • high carbon taxes
    (everything you make in China is dirty and the shipping is even dirtier)
  • high IP theft …
    even if most of the products don’t make it out of China, everything you produce in China is copied … everything … and some of the copies are now so good, even high end stores in the US are getting fooled!
  • limited options …
    many of your best options went out of business over the last two decades as you believed the overpriced consultants with their false promises that the savings would last forever (but nothing lasts forever …)
  • increased disruptions
    due to the soon to be three-fold increase in natural disasters annually since the China craze began in the late eighties/early nineties (which is projected to be five fold within a decade or so)

On the flip-side, many of the factories you used to use are still where they were. The workforce is still there. The potential is still there. All you have to do is invest in it. It may mean a partial return to the vertically integrated company where you own (part) of your supplier, as you may have to re-enter into co-opetition through conglomerates where you and a group of your peers each minority invest in a new entity to bring that factory back online (or build a new one), but nothing is stopping you. And it might take a year or two (or three) to bring it back, but you can do it, and greatly reduce your supply chain risk in the long term. And, to make it a bit more personal, when you do this, just like Justin, you will have brought SexyBack

In short:

Unnecessary Outsourcing, especially Unnecessary Overseas Outsourcing, broke the supply chain. If you want to fix it, JUST STOP!

To be fair, we should point out that this article is aimed at the primary readership of this blog, which is North America / (Western) Europe as well as the continents of Australia, South America, and Africa. This article is NOT aimed at Asia, because China is part of Asia, which means if you are buying to support an Asian market, in this situation you should be buying from China (and Fuck the Americas), as per our qualifying assertion near the beginning of this article.

Your Biggest Threat of Disruption For the Next Decade is NOT What You Think!

Disruptions are on the rise. It’s a fact, and if you want proof, just visit the World Economic Forum and check out their Global Value Chain Barometer. While some categories of disruptions are holding steady, disruptions are on the rise overall and not a single category is declining.

If asked what the biggest source of disruptions are, depending on where you are located in the world and what industry you are in, you’re likely to say that the biggest sources of disruption are either
a) war and conflict,
b) natural disasters, or
c) cyberattacks.
And while those have traditionally been (among) the highest sources of disruptions, you’d be wrong. The biggest source of disruptions this year have been strikes and walkouts globally. And as the brilliant Robert Reich will tell you, despite the large number of strikes we’ve seen over the last year, workforce revolts are just getting started.

When you consider

  • the rapid rise in inflation globally, especially around necessities (food, housing, healthcare),
  • the fact that, despite the almost two decades of low inflation, intermixed with short periods of stagflation, the majority of the population in many first world countries were financially struggling before inflation came back, especially given that many were out of work for part or all of COVID and didn’t get near enough financial aid to keep their heads above water, and
  • they’re all scared of AI taking their jobs

Many people are near their breaking point. Strikes are going to keep happening, and repeat every 2 to 4 years (depending on the union contract length) until the underlying issue is fixed. But it’s not going to be fixed!

Why? As the brilliant Robert Reich points out, it’s because of the vast inequality between the (super) wealthy and the average person. In the past 45 years, CEO pay has skyrocketed 1,460% while the typical worker saw a pay increase of just 18%. This has led to a vast inequality between a small group of very wealthy people in a mid-size or large company and the average employee. Until this gap is narrowed, the situation is only going to worsen as more and more laborers reach the point where they’re already broke and have nothing to lose by walking off the job, and strikes are going to become much more common than they were in the past 40 years.

The situation could be fixed easily if CEOs and Boards increased worker’s pay each year a few % above the average rate of inflation for the next few years, a move that would cost most companies only a small fraction of their profit (and still keep the differential pay increase between the average worker and the CEO above a 1000% differential using the same baseline), but it’s obvious this is not going to happen (even though that would still be a ridiculous divide). This fact is best illustrated by the current writers’ and actors’ strike that every single person in the world is aware of where the executives have simply decided to do nothing because the unions will come around when the majority of writers and actors (where 99% don’t make enough to pay their rent and eat without side-jobs) get to the point where they are at risk of losing, or have lost, their sh!tty apartments. (And trust me when I say that they are sh!tty apartments! There are two sides to Hollywood, the side you see, and the run down slums you don’t see where the majority of actors and writers live by doing side gigs while waiting for their big break, which won’t come for over 90% of them.)

It’s an utterly ridiculous situation, especially when it would be trivially simple for any government to fix with a one page bill. (For example, it could be solved if all first world governments were to simply pass a law that, in any company with more than ten employees,
1] No single person in the company can earn more than 100 times the lowest paid worker on an hourly basis during a year across all company payouts including, but not limited to, salary, bonuses, stock grants, share grants, and company paid benefits where the definition of worker would include all employees, contractors, and contractor employees doing any work for the company, which would prevent the company from shifting all low paid employees to a subsidiary to try and get around the law;
2] Any individuals found in violation of this rule would get fined $2 for every $1 in excess of their maximum allowed remuneration for the year;
3] Any officers responsible for compensation who knowingly violated this law could be criminally charged and serve jail time; and
4] These Companies would be required to submit a financial statement of compliance listing the full effective compensation of every worker (down to the janitor in the contracted cleaning firm) as part of their tax returns. Just these four simple rules would prevent most CEOs and their overpaid C-Suites from earning more than 1,500 an hour or 3 Million a year as these mega corps have plenty of minimum wage employees under current remuneration models.)

Furthermore, if a reasonable fix was made (in law) that limited executive pay to more than reasonable levels and thus limited the ability of these executives to grow their wealth to ridiculous levels unless they:

  1. paid their workers more,
  2. increased their net company value (to increase the values of the shares and stock options they earned in prior years), or
  3. started or invested in other companies

… the truth is that such a fix would all be fantastic for the economy as it would force a return to classic growth scenarios (and not the current focus of make money today to please Wall Street, even if it bankrupts the company tomorrow), which would create a much more sustainable economy in the long run. (Markets only crash when they are run up to unsustainable levels. This is a result of Wall Street pushing companies beyond sustainable growth levels.)

But it will never happen, because all the Billionaires would simply spend whatever amount of money they needed to buy enough senators and congress representatives to prevent it from happening (or enough judges to find it an unconstitutional law).

Thus, in the interim, across all industries (not just the entertainment industry the news is fixated on) you will have the greedy out-of-touch Billionaires, whose loss of income from a strike event is so negligible they won’t notice it, starving out union workers until they cave to a new union contract below inflation (while giving themselves a big year end bonus for their trouble). This will not only cause you additional disruptions you weren’t planning for (as strikes linger on for weeks and months), but will increase the inequality gap even further (while the workers get even poorer due to pay raises less than inflation), which, in turn, will set the stage for a whole new round of strikes (and disruptions to your supply chain) in two to four years when the contracts end (that the Billionaire executives will deal with in the same way).

Now, don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying Billionaires are bad (because I shouldn’t need to say it), I’m saying that the actions of the ridiculously overpaid super rich and their sole focus on the almighty dollar have set the stage for the first decade in our lifetime where strike-based disruption events will exceed natural disasters, even though natural disasters have almost tripled in the same time frame (and will continue to increase as long as global warming continues to increase).

the doctor would wish you luck, but even that can’t combat greed!

There’s Some Really Awful Procurement Job Seeking Advice Out There — Truly Awful!

On a weekly basis, the doctor scours the internet for recent developments and news in sourcing, procurement, and supply chain that major publications, analysts, bloggers, and the major LinkedIn trolls … errr … influencers might have missed. If you follow a half dozen thought leaders, analysts, major sources, etc., you won’t miss much, but deep searching can sometimes dredge up interesting tidbits, and other times can dredge up decaying waste that really should be left in the deep.

Recently, deep searching for procurement news dredged up one of the worst Procurement job seeker interview questions and answer articles he’s ever read. (These are bad in general, but if I was hiring, and you gave a single one of these answers, I’d end the interview then and there. You would have clearly demonstrated you do NOT have what it takes to survive one of the hardest back-office jobs there is, with new, unforeseen challenges arising daily.)

I’m not going to link to the article in case the author is a real person who was assigned the grisly task by the publication of writing about something they clearly had no clue about and not auto-generated by a BS OpenAI tool trained on the worse mush it can find, because they don’t deserve the embarrassment if they are a person assigned to write about a subject they were clearly clueless about. However, I am going to quote the first three questions and responses and point out why any Procurement Director worth their weight in any commodity would quickly judge you as unworthy and show you the door, before it had time to finish closing, if you rattled off one of these extremely poor canned responses presented to you.

Q1: Describe your previous experience.

Not a bad question (but the interviewer should ask you about unique aspects of your relevant experience). But

With a background of over 10 years in procurement, I bring comprehensive experience spanning various aspects of the field. My expertise includes sourcing, supplier management, contract negotiation, and administration. Throughout my career, I have consistently delivered noteworthy cost savings and streamlined processes. Additionally, I possess in-depth knowledge of both local and international procurement laws and regulations.

Is NOT a good answer.

1) Presumably if you are applying for a senior procurement role, you have significant relevant experience, how many years you have is going to be clear from your resume, and if you don’t meet a baseline, you don’t get the interview. More meaningful is related experience that brings unique insights to the role.

2) Buzzwords are meaningless. If you don’t have any experience in sourcing, supplier management, or contracts, you’re not Procurement. This is super obvious. If you don’t have any specific skills, or deep knowledge of certain processes, back to the sea with you.

3) If you didn’t deliver savings or process improvements, you would have been fired. Multiple times. It would show on your resume, and you wouldn’t get the interview.

4) What local and international laws? There are 195 countries. These all have laws and regulations that affect Procurements in, from, and through their countries. These could be finance (post-audit/clearance, anti-bribery, etc.), human welfare, sustainability, or other laws. Get specific. If you spent a decade buying fruit from South America but the company wants you to buy semiconductor chips from China, Taiwan, and Japan — how does that help?

Q2: Tell us about your qualifications for this job.

Again, not a bad question (but the interviewer should focus in on your strongest or most unique). But

I hold a bachelor’s degree in business administration with a specialization in supply chain management. Over the course of 5 years, I have actively worked in procurement, honing my skills and expertise. My experience spans the management of both direct and indirect spend, granting me a comprehensive understanding of procurement operations. Moreover, I possess proficiency in various procurement software systems and boast a solid comprehension of contract law.

Is also NOT a good answer.

1) Obvious from the resume, but I can, and probably will in a later article, argue that most business / operations / supply chain programs are NOT (on their own) qualifications for Procurement. (Future article, because this rant is more than an article in itself.)

2) Repeating an answer, inconsistently (10 to 5 years), is useless and adds nothing beyond the resume (except confusion).

3) Again, buzzwords are meaningless. Indirect to one company is direct to another and vice versa. What did you buy? And what insights did you glean (that the average schmuck has no understanding of)?

4) Various systems. Do you mean email and Excel? A 20 year old version of SAP Ariba? A modern suite like Coupa or Jaggaer? Or BoB solutions like Anydata, Bonfire, ContractPodAI, DecideWare, EC Sourcing, etc. etc. etc.

5) Contract Law? Great! But what countries, states/provinces, and contract types are you most adept with. (And remember, expertise in contracts is NOT expertise in contract law. It’s pretty easy to be an expert in contracts if you do them enough, but without a solid legal understanding, it’s pretty hard!)

Q3: How would you describe your procurement process?

Finally, a good question. But

The procurement process typically starts with the receipt of a request for proposal (RFP) from a potential customer. This document outlines the customer’s specific requirements for the desired product or service. The procurement team will leverage this information to compile a comprehensive list of potential suppliers. Subsequently, they will issue a request for quotation (RFQ) to these suppliers.

Is NOT a good answer. It’s actually even worse then the answers above!

1) If you worked for a make-to-order / build-to-order organization, that’s typically the process. If you make off-the-shelf CPG, then the process starts with a forecast and an assignment to “get ‘er done“.

2) If the interviewer doesn’t know what an RFP is, you should run for the door.

3) You can’t procure without suppliers, so this is a standard step in every 5/6/7/8/9 step process out there!

4) DUH!

Not once does it get into any specific, unique, best practice details that show the deep understanding you possess of Procurement processes.

At this point in the article, the questions got slightly better — but the answers continued to be bad or even worse than this one.

It’s sad. None of them address what a Procurement Director / Chief Procurement Officer (CPO) is looking for.

The relative priority of desires will vary from CPO to CPO, but these are the big ones that all CPOs have in the back of their minds.

1) Education – a university degree; relevant to what you are buying is typically preferred if you are junior, any degree if you are senior; how does your education relate to the position you are applying for?

2) Experience – relevant experience in what you will be buying, not necessarily as a buyer, possibly as an engineer, depending on the expertise needed to do the job (just like you can teach a mathematician accounting but you can’t always teach an accountant advanced mathematics, you can teach a trained professional Procurement but you can’t always teach an average buyer the fundamentals of technology or engine engineering).

3) EQ (Emotional Quotient) – you will have to work in a team; how did you work in a team in previous job(s) for complex procurements

4) TQ (Technology Quotient) – you will have to use technology, and hopefully continually improving and evolving tech; what modern tech have you used?

5) Think-on-Your-Feet Adaptability – nothing will ever go according to plan, and you will have to fight fires on a daily basis and find solutions quickly to prevent minor bumps leading to major derailments

6) Strategic Thinking – how should you approach a category or a problem; how could you improve current processes based on current learning; what did you do that improved a process in the past or solved a difficult problem?

7) Risk Management Mindset – you can’t eliminate all risks, but you can mitigate many and manage others; how do you embed this in your process

8) Sustainability – both environmental and corporate; you often have to find a delicate balance; what requirements did you have and how did you meet them without skyrocketing costs

9) Mathematics and Cost Modelling – a quote is not a cost, it’s a quote; you need to understand core cost drivers to judge quotes; demonstrate this in at least one answer

10) Independence – you will need to continually learn and continually self manage; your boss won’t be available 24/7 and definitely not when you need to make a critical decision quickly to keep a project moving

Don’t Trust an Analyst Firm to Score UX and Implementation Time!

A post late last month on LinkedIn started off as follows:

“If you’ve ever read any research papers or solution maps on procurement tech, you’ve probably figured out a couple of things.

1. It’s confusing and overly complex
2. It doesn’t cover the basic, most obvious-of-the-obvious fundamentals that everyone needs to consider.

These are:

– User interface and user experience (UI/UX)
– Ease and speed of implementation

Why don’t they do this?

Honestly, I don’t know the answer.

The cynic in me says it’s because their biggest paymasters have a horrible UI/UX and require a very complex and lengthy implementation.”

This really bothered me, not because UX and implementation time aren’t super important, they are, and they are among the biggest determinants of adoption (which is critical to success), but because anyone would think an analyst firm should address this.

The reality is that no proper analyst will attempt to score these because they are completely subjective! As a result:

  1. There is no objective, function-based/capability-based scale that could be scored consistently by any knowledgeable analyst on the subject and
  2. What is a great experience to one person, with a certain expectation of tech based upon prior experience and knowledge of their function, can be complete CR@P to another person.

Now, some firms do bury such subjective evaluations on UX and implementation time in their 2*2s where they squish an average of 6 subjective ratings into a dimension, but that is why those maps are complete garbage! (See: Dear Analyst Firms: Please stop mangling maps, inventing award categories, and evaluating what you don’t understand!) So no self-respecting analyst should do it. As an example, one analyst might like solutions with absolute minimalist design, with everything hidden and everything automated against pre-built rules (that may, or may not, be right for your organization and may result in an automated sourcing solution placing a Million dollar order with payment up front for a significant early payment discount to a supplier that subsequently files for bankruptcy and doesn’t deliver your goods) while a second might like full user control through a multi-screen multi-step interface for what could be a one-screen and one-step function and a third might like to see as much capability and information as possible squished into every screen and long for the days of text-based green-screens where you weren’t distracted by graphics and animations and design. Each of these analyst would score the same UX completely different! On a 10 point scale, for a given UX design, three analysts in the same firm could give scores of 1, 5, and 10, averaged to 5 … and how is that useful? It’s not!

(And while analysts can define scales of maturity for the technology the UX is based on, just because a vendor is using the latest technology, that doesn’t mean their UX is any good. New technology can be just as horrendously misused as old technology.)

The same goes for implementation time. An analyst that mainly focuses on simple sourcing/procurement where you should just be able to flick a SaaS switch and go would think that an implementation time of more than a week is abysmal, but an analyst that primarily analyzes CLM and SMDM would call BS on anything less than six weeks and expect three months for an implementation time. This is because, for CLM, you have to find all the contracts, feed them in, run them through AI for automated meta-data extraction, do manual review, and set up new processes while for SMDM you have to integrate half a dozen systems, do data integrations, cleansing, and enrichment through cross-referencing with third party sources, create golden records, do manual spot-check reviews, and push the data back . Implementation time is dependent on the solution, the architecture, what it does, what data it needs, what systems it needs to be integrated with, what support there is for data extraction and loading in those legacy systems, etc. Implementation time needs to be judged against the minimum amount of time to do it effectively, which is also customer dependent. Expecting an analyst to understand all the potential client situations is ridiculous. Expecting them to craft an “average customer situation”, base an implementation time on this, and score a set of random vendors accordingly is even more ridiculous.

The factors ARE absolutely vital, but they need to be judged by the buying organization as part of the review cycle, AFTER they’ve verified that the vendor can offer a solution that will meet

  • their current, most pressing, needs as an organization,
  • their evolving needs as they will need to get other problems under control, and
  • do so with a solution that is technically sound and complete with respect to the two requirements above while also being capable of scaling up and evolving over time (as well as capable of being plugged into an appropriate platform-based ecosystem through a fully Open API).

A good analyst an guide you on ways to judge this and what you might want to consider, but that’s it … you have to be the final judge, not them.

That’s why, when the doctor co-designed Solution Map when he was a Consulting Analyst for Spend Matters, the Solution Map focussed on scoring the technological foundations, which could be judged on an objective scale based on the evolution of underlying technology over the past two-plus decades and/or the evolution of functionality to address a specific problem over the past two-plus decades. It’s up to you whether you like it or not, think the implementation time frames are good or not, believe the vendor is innovative or not, and are satisfied with the vendor size and maturity, not the analyst. Those are business viewpoints that are business dependent. Analysts should score capabilities and foundations, particularly where buyers are ill-equipped to do so (and this also means that analysts scoring technology MUST be trained technologists with a formal, educational, background in technology — computer science, engineering, etc. — and experience in Software Development or Implementation –and yes, the doctor realizes this is not always the case, and that’s probably why most of the analyst maps are squished dimensions across half-a-dozen subjective factors [as they are not capable of properly evaluating what they are claiming to be subject matter experts in; as a comparison, when you have a journalist or historian or accountant rating modern SaaS platforms that’s the equivalent of having a plumber certify your electrical wiring or a landscaper judging the strength of the framing in your new house — sure, they’re trade pros, but do you really want to judge their opinion that the wiring is NOT going to start an electrical fire and burn your house down or the frame is strong enough for the 3,000 pounds of appliances you intend to put on the 2nd floor? the doctor would hope not!).

The cynic might say they don’t want to embarrass their sponsors, but the realist will realize the analysts can’t effectively judge vendors on this and the smart analysts won’t even try (but will instead guide you on the factors you should consider and look for when evaluating potential solutions on the shortlist they can help you build by giving you a list of vendors that provide the right type of solution and are technically sound, vs. three random vendors from a Google search that don’t even offer the same type of solution).

Have the Analyst Firms Finally Admitted They Don’t Know What They’re Doing?

the doctor recently went on a big rant about the analyst firms and the utter lack of usefulness in the maps they release, the focus they put on what they don’t understand, and the award categories they invent because, even though they have/had some great talent (and should be doing incredible work), what they’ve publicly released has been mostly valueless to the market they’ve been trying to serve (when it wouldn’t be too hard to provide a lot of value based on all the research and work they do). In the doctor‘s view, this is very sad because if they could demonstrate the value they provide, they would be more relevant across the market (and likely get a lot more business from smaller and/or more innovative providers who think that, because of the budgets the big players like Oracle, SAP, and Coupa have, the analysts are always going to recommend those companies anyway).

However, now he’s gone from sad to mad about something he has just heard from a couple of vendors regarding one of the biggest firms, because, if true, it means not only do they not have a clue about what is and is not valuable in tech, but they are unnecessarily creating confusing and obfuscating technology that still may be best in class.

So what have they done now? Well, apparently they are now basing 30% of the score on whether or not the vendor has “AI” in their platform, something which they’ve repeatedly proven they have ZERO ability to score whatsoever! So, either a vendor makes false, grandiose claims (and tries to use Applied Indirection to fool the Analyst Idiot that they have more than Artificial Idiocy in their Application Implementation), or they get scored low even if they have the best technology built on best practices, proven algorithms, and consistent results that give their customers a 5X to 10X ROI.

True AI adds value, but, in the doctor‘s experience,

  • up to 80% of AI claims are Applied Indirection (at best) or Artificial Idiocy (at worst); in fact, some of the “AI” in spend analysis is still the “AI” they used in the early 2000s, and the doctor would rather not spell out that sad, but still true for some vendors, racial slur
  • up to 80% of the rest, or up to 16% of tech that claims AI, is level one Assistive Intelligence; and this is typically just classic RPA (Robotic Process Automation) using human-defined parameter-based rules, and the “AI” is the automatic parameter adjustment based on user overrides … not very intelligent, eh?
  • up to 80% of the rest, or up to 4% of the tech that claims AI, is level 2 Augmented Intelligence, which is the first level of AI where the tech can learn from human feedback and provide better insights and recommendations over time on one or more specific tasks, and the first level of AI that you should even consider as AI
  • up to 80% of the rest, up to 1% of the tech that claims AI, and the highest level modern technology has generally achieved, is level 3, Apperceptive Intelligence, or Cognitive Intelligence, where the systems can not only learn from specific human feedback to recommendations but from general knowledge and intelligence available to it from integrated data sources to mimic the performance of the best human experts over time, even evolving processes, behaviours, and actions within well-defined bounds
  • and then the rest, 0.1% or less, is nearing level 4, Autonomous Intelligence, where the system can learn, evolve, adapt, and maintain itself over time without human intervention … and hopefully execute meaningful, appropriate decisions grounded in best process and fact that considers all of the relevant information available (and not go off of the rails and advise you to commit suicide because you feel bad, Hail Hitler, or sacrifice a trolley full of people and a cross-walk full of pedestrians because there might be a cat in the road — all things AI has already done)

And even where a platform has semblances of real AI, chances are that the AI (the vendor is now forced to include or arbitrarily be relegated to the dustbin because, apparently, it’s not solutions but buzz-acronymns that matter now) is producing worst results than the best traditional algorithm or methodology on expert curated data sets and dimensions. For example, the vast majority of the market believes AI improves forecasting. It doesn’t. The best AI is still inferior to the best techniques developed in the 70s when applied to the right data dimensions. All the “AI”, which is just fancy, souped-up versions of classical machine learning (using algorithms developed in the 80s and 90s for which we didn’t have enough computing power until recently), does is run all of the data through a model that integrates classification with prediction to filter out the most relevant dimensions and the best curve fitting technique as all these algorithms, at the core, are based on 50+ year old statistics! This means that, at the end of the day, their best case performance is something a human genius figured out 50+ years ago.

But to achieve that best case, the developers have to implement the right AI algorithms, tune them properly, allow them to run long enough to correctly fit (but not over-fit) the training data sets, and monitor those algorithms over time … and to do that they need to be an expert in those algorithms, which they probably aren’t. So, in order to “check a box”, and sell you a product, they are ultimately integrating algorithms that will give you an inferior result (while requiring considerably more computing power that runs up your cloud utilization bill), versus sticking to tried-and-true algorithms and processes that their experts tweaked over years and that their experts can explain and verify at any time.

And this is an almost reasonable example of what a technology vendor might do (as the best predictive algorithms are not untested “AI” but based on classical, tried-and-true, statistical or optimization functions). Most of what the doctor has seen is MUCH worse than this. And the fact that some big analyst firms are now forcing vendors with good tech to integrate underdeveloped, unproven, and often untested AI just to get a rating, make a map, or be recommended is downright stupid.

SHAME ON ANY ANALYST FIRM THAT DOES THIS! Buzzwords are not products, and unproven tech is not value. Analysts should be recommending the best solutions, regarding of the tech they are based on. the doctor is simply appalled!