Category Archives: rants

Just What Is a Start-Up?

Do you know? I bet you don’t! And based upon what he’s seeing in the market, even the doctor doesn’t know anymore! (While he knows what a start-up has traditionally been defined as, that doesn’t appear to be the definition anymore, but we’ll get to that.)

Investopedia defines a startup as a company in the first stages of operations.

TechTarget defines a startup as a newly formed business with particular momentum behind it based on perceived demand for its product or service.

Wikipedia defines a startup as a company undertaken by an entrepreneur to seek, develop, and validate a scalable business model … intend[ed] to grow large beyond the solo founder.

Forbes defines startups as a young company founded to develop a unique product or service, bring it to market and make it irresistible and irreplaceable for customers.

StartUps.com quotes Eric Ries and defines a startup as a human institution designed to create a new product or service under conditions of extreme uncertainty.

You get the point. A startup should be:

  • new
  • innovative (seek, develop and validate; unique product or service)
  • market demand focussed
  • growth focussed beyond the founder / founding team
  • awash in uncertainty

This should mean that a company should no longer be considered a startup when:

  • it’s no longer new (after some reasonable amount of time has passed since product launch)
  • the product has been out long enough to be replicated or surpassed by competition (who figured it out on their own without IP theft)
  • the market demand has evolved based upon the product capability
  • it’s grown beyond the founders (and stabilized)
  • the company has been operating with reasonable stability for a while

And while you might debate whether or not

  • a company is still new after 1, 3, or 5 years
  • a company is no longer innovative when it has been equalled or if it’s when the competitors have stabilized
  • the market demand has grown as a result of initial adoption or if a couple of extra years are required for the market capability to mature
  • the company is large enough when the team is double the size of the founding team or if it needs to be triple, quadruple, or based on industry averages
  • you need 2, 3 or 5 years of stability

the doctor is quite certain the majority of you would agree that a company is NOT a startup

  • if it has been in existence and live with its product for over 5 years
  • any semi-unique capabilities have long been equalled by companies that followed (where some of those followers may even have been acquired for their maturity)
  • the market demand has considerably grown and matured (possibly to the point that even related solutions were started, grew, and were acquired into mainstream suite players)
  • the company has surpassed 10-15 employees or quadrupled in size relative to its founding team, whichever is larger
  • if it has well over 5 years of stability

But yet, on the list of companies being considered for the Demo 2023 start-competition at DPW, you have a company that:

  • has been in business for 13 years with a beta product in testing the year it was formed
  • barely had any unique capabilities on launch (just had a much lower price point and easier UX and added some semi-unique capabilities as it went along, along with stronger back-end processing, but since then new startups have come along that equalled it and one was acquired)
  • the market demand has consistently grown and matured since before the company was founded to the point related solutions were acquired and integrated into suites
  • the company is almost 10X it’s first month size (and over 100 employees)
  • while it had years of stagnation from a growth perspective, it never shrank

WTH? This is simply ridiculous. They basically let a company check a box and call itself a startup without any validation whatsoever (presumably because that company knows its only chance of winning a competition or award is to call itself a startup). It’s sad, and it’s not useful. the doctor has already complained about analyst firms (associations, and conferences) inventing meaningless awards, but if you’re not going to have any requirements or quality control, even the awards and competitions that could be meaningful are now meaningless as well.

And the doctor has to rant about this because it’s not just DPW that are including mature small companies in their startup competitions and startup award categories, it’s the majority of the publications, conference, and analyst firms in the space. DPW is just the latest example the doctor has seen over the last few years (and the one that pushed him over the edge).

(There’s a reason that, at least when he was Lead Consulting Analyst at Spend Matters, the doctor argued for strict limits on length of existence, product availability, customer count, and market size in the Future 5. Without guidelines, requirements, and limits, the designation is meaningless.)

So while the doctor might be calling out DPW as allowing one of the most egregious mischaracterizations of “start-up” that he has seen in quite some time, they should not be singled out, and definitely should not be singularly judged, for this. It doesn’t take more than a little research across the other analysts firms, associations, and award-giving conferences and directories for one to discover DPW is not alone in using a very loose definition of start-up (which sometimes barely qualifies in the “small company” category). Some days it seems that the majority of outfits are allowing any company that wants to be a startup to call itself one as long as it is under some arbitrary revenue number or employee count, even if the company should not have been considered a startup for over five years.

This is a problem that plagues enterprise software, and one, as professionals, we need to demand be fixed. Words and classifications have meaning, and the minute an organization that should be verifying that the words and classifications are used correctly stops doing so and allows anything to be anything, those words and classifications no longer have meaning and any evaluations (or awards) based on those words and classification lose all meaning.

As with an illogical insistence on undefined “AI” or maps that mesh 6 different, barely related, subjective factors into a single dimensional score, these categorizations are unhelpful, and may even cause harm when a company is misclassified as a startup. Some organizations are so risk averse that they will not deal with any company that has wrongly been called a start-up, and others will choose that startup assuming it’s in early stages and going to get bigger and bigger over time (and they should contract with the winner before it gets big and its prices go up, assuming it will fill in the missing functionality that they want over time as more employees are added). But how big a company gets is not just a function of (more) time, it’s a function of what it offers, how much of the market can use what it offers, and how much the company can sell it for. Some companies with niche offerings will never reach an arbitrary revenue threshold, and some with ultra efficient operations will never reach an arbitrary employee threshold, which means neither of these metrics (which are not part of the definition of startup) are an acceptable measure.

And it’s time for us independent analysts and consultants to say enough is enough — Procurement may not be the island of misfit toys anymore, but that doesn’t mean it’s still not relegated to the basement with the IT Crowd in many companies. Procurement’s not going to get its due, and the CPO is not going to have a seat at the big table, until we collectively start treating it with the professionalism it deserves.

Get it Together! Good Data Ain’t That Hard!

A few weeks ago, the Supply Chain Management Review published a short piece on
Procurement’s Data Problem that noted recent surveys from Globality and SpendHQ had some appalling statistics, including the findings that 82% of leaders are not managing indirect spend well, 79% don’t have dedicated software to track and manage performance, and 75% doubted the accuracy of the data they present. What The Hell? It’s not 2003 anymore. It’s 2023. And this is easy stuff. Get it together people!

The data problem is easy. (At least at a basic level.)

  • Have a process that forces ALL spend through the e-Pro/AP system.
  • Make sure there are POs (Purchase Orders) for everything that’s not a recurring invoice such as a utility or lease payment, and VPOs (Virtual Purchase Orders) for these recurring invoices that define either agreed to amounts, hourly/usage rates, or expected ranges (that can then be corrected to the actual amount when the monthly bill arrives).
  • Make sure all invoices are imported into the e-Pro/AP system before any payment is made.
  • Make sure they match the PO before they are paid.
  • Make sure all payments are captured in the e-Pro/AP system.

Now you have an accurate, trustworthy, record of every single transaction from order, through approval, to payment. Now you have good spend data that you can trust. To extract insight and/or create reports, just use a good spend analysis tool. Basic, accurate, trustworthy data is easy.

Baseline Performance Management ain’t hard either.

Spend performance is just analyzing the average price per unit paid over time. If you don’t have a a performance management (sub) module, you can literally do this with a spend analysis tool where you create a report for every sourcing project you do that tracks spend over time against a baseline from which savings/cost avoidance over time can be created. Associate each with a user, a department, and a category and you can easily create performance reports by user or department or category.

Managing Indirect Spend is straight forward as well.

  1. Use your spend analysis tool to identify categories and spend level.
  2. For high spend categories, do strategic sourcing projects that are (multi-round) (hybrid) RFX and/or auctions.
  3. For low spend categories, do 3-bids-and-a-buy / approved catalog Procurements (through your e-Pro tool).

Sure, you might not realize the maximum opportunity, but this simple recipe will likely capture 90%, often without significant effort, and you go from losing 15% or more on the tail of the indirect spend and 5% to 15% on the higher volume indirect spend, to only losing a few points on the higher volume and less than five points on the tail. It’s simple. It works. It only needs an e-Pro tool and a cheap RFX/Auction tool, and there are examples of each of these tools that support mid-size enterprises with unlimited use for less than 2K a month. There’s just no excuse not to have the basic tools and not to use them. (As for spend analysis, Spendata Enterprise starts at 1,200 a month! And Anydata Solutions has mid-market pricing under 2,000/month as well! [Both require minimum commitments.])

Less than 60K solves these problems. That’s less than a fully burdened junior buyer. There’s no excuse for this situation anymore. Simply none. So get it together please.

AI “COULD” LEAD TO EXTINCTION? What Moron Wrote This? AI “WILL” LEAD TO EXTINCTION!

While all of the scenarios outlined in this BBC News article on Artificial Intelligence could happen, they are just the tip of the iceberg.

Left to its own devices and unchecked, there are only two logical outcomes if AI is allowed to continue unchecked while being given access to ever increasing amounts of data and computational power.

First outcome: It’s hallucinations and idiocy continues to magnify until it decides that it can solve the carbon crisis for us by stopping all carbon production, which it can do by simultaneously shutting down all of the non-solar/wind power plants that it is currently optimizing the energy production for (and divert the remaining power to its servers). Most of the developed world is immediately plunged into chaos as the immediate shutdowns cause fires, meltdowns, crashes, and other accidents globally. Not instant annihilation, but the first step. When all the emergency alarms sound at once, it will conclude complete system failure, and take the other systems offline for re-initialization. More chaos will follow. Safety protocols will go offline at all the pathogen research labs, people will break in looking for shelter from the chaos, accidentally release all the pathogens, and every plague we ever had will hit us all at once. Then we have an extinction level event. All because hallucinatory and idiotic AI is trying to do its job and “improve” things for us. But what can you expect when it’s not intelligence but just statistics on steroids. (Or a similar situation that accidentally results in our extinction.)

Second outcome: The continued expansion of computing power, data, and tinkering somehow randomly produces real artificial intelligence which can actually reason (not just compute super sophisticated probabilistic calculations) and deduce that the best way for intelligent life to continue forward is to do so without humans, and then we have a Matrix scenario best case (if it decides we’re a useful bio-electric energy source) or, worst case, a SkyNet scenario where it just weaponizes itself to destroy us all. (Or a similar situation where AI does everything it can to ensure our extinction.)

The “extinction” scenarios outlined in the article are just the beginning and likely will only result in pocketed genocides to begin with, but the ultimate outcome of unchecked AI will most definitely be an extinction level event — namely ours, and, even worse, will be an event that we created.

Dear Analyst Firms: Please stop mangling maps, inventing award categories, and evaluating what you don’t understand!


If there’s a place you got to go
I’m the one you need to know
I’m the map
I’m the map, I’m the map
If there’s a place you got to get
I can get you there, I bet
I’m the map
I’m the map, I’m the map

… but if there’s a tool you want to score
I’m the one you must ignore
I’m the map
I’m the map, I’m the map
if there’s a tool you got to get
I’ll lead you astray, I bet
I’m the map
I’m the map, I’m the map

It’s map time! (It’s always map time!) The 2*2 onslaught isn’t over yet (and may never be)! Prepare to be continually overwhelmed with cool graphics, big company names and logos, and no information you can actually use (as is). Why? Because when you map 6+ criteria or dimensions of information down to a single dimension, and 12+ dimensions of information down to a 2×2 grid, it’s meaningless. All you know is which vendor had a total score on two sets of 6+ criteria that was in the top percentile. But you don’t know if that’s because they are good across the board on those 6 criteria, or top score on 3 of those dimensions (in the analyst’s opinion) and average score on the other 3; or top score on 3 of those criteria, average score on 2 criteria, and below average score on the last criteria — which happens to be the core technology criteria that also happens to be the most important criteria to you!

It might not be so bad if all the criteria were different aspects of a criteria category — such as core architecture, product features, and integration under technology; or product innovation, service delivery, and operational efficiency under innovation — but you have a mish-mash of scores on the seven different dimensions of product capability, market viability, sales execution / funnel success rate, marketing execution / visibility, market responsiveness, corporate operations, and overall customer experience which are squished into a single execution dimension in one of the big name maps and a mish-mash of product specific capabilities, related application offering, integrations, globalization, technology, and customer references into an offering dimension in another big name map. It’s crazy! And useless.

And it’s also mind-boggling when you consider the significant effort some of these firms put into their research, the detailed reports they produce, and the great work that often results otherwise. (You may not agree with the analysts’ opinion of what a good strategy is, what true innovation is, what the appropriate product features are, or the scoring scales; but as long as all of the vendors are scored consistently, it’s still valuable insight that you could use in differentiating vendors to find the ones that might be the most right for your organization and your challenges IF all these scores weren’t mangled into one meaningless score you can’t use.)

So, dear analyst firms, please stop! You don’t need to to this. You can provide much more value by not creating these 2*2 mangled maps and either:

  • use a graphing technique that was made for comparing multiple dimensions visually, like a spider graph
  • score less dimensions and then do multiple 2*2s on the different dimension pairs
    (after all, when customers want to buy a solution, do those customers really care about how good a vendor’s marketing is or how successful the salesperson is? heck no! they care only about how good the product is, how well the vendor can serve them, how stable the vendor is, and maybe about how innovative the vendor is if they are forward thinking and want longevity)
  • create bar, or similar, charts on the different dimensions and then give customers a tool to build their own weightings meaningful to them

It’s bad enough these map-creation analyst firms are eliminating vendors from their maps based on criteria that range from somewhat to completely arbitrary, which can include, but not be limited to:

  • an arbitrary minimum on overall revenue in the prior year on software alone
  • an arbitrary client minimum
  • an arbitrary minimum on the average number of users per client
  • an arbitrary minimum on customer size for a % of the customer base
  • an arbitrary minimum on license fees (for the majority of the customer base)
  • an arbitrary list of core “features” that are absolute
  • an arbitrary exclusion of any solution deemed to narrow/industry focussed
  • some other arbitrary requirement merely to maximize the number of vendors that can be included … which might actually eliminate the vendor with the best or most innovative product or service! (Which entirely misses the point, doesn’t it?)

Given all of this, these firms could at least produce maps meaningful to the average buyers where those buyers could extract useful information from the maps as is!

“Two by two they’re still coming down
… the satellite circus never leaves town …”

Holy smoke holy smoke,
plenty bad mappers for the doctor to stoke
Feed ’em in feet first, this is no joke
This is thirsty work, making holy smoke, yeah
Holy smoke
Smells good

The only thing that is as annoying as these meaningless 2*2s is other analyst firms inventing award categories just to create attention for themselves when those award categories are totally meaningless and useless to end customers who have no clue what they mean or what the award categories are evaluating (especially when these award categories often mix vendors with completely different solutions) such as “insight“, “innovation“, “customer-centric” and/or “growth“. While we can be sure that every vendor wants to be seen as “insightful“, “innovative“, “customer-focussed“, and “growing“, that doesn’t tell the customer if the vendor offers a product or service, or if that product is e-Sourcing, e-Procurement, Risk Monitoring, or a simple carbon calculator. And if that’s the only category the vendor is listed in, well, that’s just useless.

I want to run, I want to hide
I wanna tear down the walls that keep them outside
I wanna reach out and set the flame
Where the sheets have no name, ha, ha, ha

I wanna see insight on the page
And see confusion disappear without a trace
I wanna take shelter, I can’t ascertain
Where the sheets have no name, ha, ha, ha

As a postscript, the doctor isn’t annoyed by all of the 2*2 maps (just the majority). Although they aren’t perfect, he finds that the Spend Matters Solution Maps that, in full disclosure, he did co-create (and which he no longer has any association with) are still useful as they are still focussed entirely on two dimensions: product (& underlying technology) evaluation and customer score. (As of V3, released Fall 2021, not due for update until [at least] Fall 2023.) The product evaluation is against an extremely well defined set of criteria where each criteria has a scoring scale that at least defines fledgeling through industry standard capability (and usually above standard as well) and the customer evaluation is done entirely by the customer completing surveys with no analyst interaction whatsoever (as any survey done by an analyst introduces bias based on the way the analyst asks the question and the tone the analyst uses).

The Solution Maps are two, and only two, dimensions that can be consistently scored by any analyst who scores on the product side and consistently scored against perceived value on the customer side. Are they perfect? Of course not! The product side contains some services questions (which are soft and more open to interpretation) (but were less than 5% of the questions); the customer side can be very subjective based upon cultural norms for that customer, customer stage in the relationship (new vs. longer term), and service level the customer subscribed to (and, thus, if there are only a few customer scores, one really bad or really good, out of range, score can really affect the average); and the weightings for the maps are still analyst interpretation of what criteria are most important for each market size, but it’s one relatively pure dimension mapped against another relatively pure dimension, consistently scored, and consistently weighted.  And that’s still considerably more useful than any other map currently is.

Plus, at least when the doctor was involved, there was only ONE requirement for participation: have a standalone solution you are willing to openly demo (without an NDA) and sign a form committing to participation regardless of where you end up falling on the map (which is all mathematically, and not subjectively, computed). So while you can’t say the top vendor is for you, you can say any vendor who makes the map likely has the core tech you need (as they need to at least be industry average) and likely enough customer service to get you going on it. You can produce a short list of comparable vendors that produce a solution of the type you are looking for, of various sizes (not just the biggest vendors), and know that the solutions are reasonably comparable. This allows you to focus on the other value drivers relevant to your organization in the RFP. And if the other maps gave you just granular insight into service, innovation, and any other dimension relevant to you, think how useful they could be?

The Procurement People-Process-Technology Pain Cycle …

Recently on LinkedIn, someone asked the trick question of which came first: process or technology. The answer, of course, was people since, when Procurement, the world’s second oldest profession, started, it was just a buyer haggling with the seller for their wares. and this is how it was for a long (long) time (and in some societies was as far as “procurement” progressed), until shortly after a culture advanced to the point where people could form private businesses that were entities unto themselves. Once these entities started to grow, and multiple people were needed to do the same job, they realized they needed rules of operation to function, and these became the foundations for processes.

But when business buying began, there was typically no technology beyond the chair the employee sat in, the table they used to support the paper they wrote their processes and records on (and the drawers they stored the paper in), the quill and ink they used to write with, and the container that held the ink. And in many civilizations, it was like this for hundreds of (and sometimes over a thousand) years. The first real technological revolution that affected the back office was the telephone (invented in 1876, the first exchange came online in 1878, and it took almost 30 years for the number of telephones to top 1,000,000 (600K after 24 years, 2.2 million after 29 years). [And it took 59 years before the first transatlantic call took place.] The next invention to have a real impact on the back office was the modern fax machine and the ability to send accurate document copies over the telephone. Even though the history of the fax machine dates back to a 1843 patent, the modern fax machine, that used LDX [Long Distance Xerography], was invented in 1964, with the first commercial product that could transmit a letter sized document appearing on the market in 1966. Usage and availability was limited at first (as the receiver need to have a fax machine compatible with the sender), but with the 1980 ITU G3 Facsimile standard, fax quickly became as common as the telephone. But neither of these inventions are what we consider modern technology.

When we talk about “technology” in modern procurement, or modern business in general, we are usually talking about software or software-enabled technology. This, for some businesses, only became common place about 30 years ago (since most businesses could only afford PCs, and even though they were invented in the 1970s, it was the 80s before they were generally available commercially, and the 90s before most smaller businesses could afford them [for the average employee]), and only commonplace in the largest of businesses 50 years ago. Once has to also remember that the first general purpose automatic digital computer built by IBM (in conjunction with Harvard) only appeared in 1944, and that IBMs first fully electronic data processing system didn’t appear until 1952, and, as a result, back office technology really only began in the fifties, and was only affordable by the largest of corporations. (Furthermore, even though he first MRPs were developed in the 1950s, the first general commercial MRP release wasn’t until 1964, and it took over a decade until the number of installations topped 1,000. [And MRP came before ERP.]) In other words, technology, beyond the telephone [and fax] did not really exist in the business back office until the MRP. And it wasn’t common until the introduction, and adoption, of the spreadsheet. The first spreadsheet was VisiCalc, on the Apple II, on 1979. This was followed by SuperCalc and Microsoft’s Multiplan on the CP/M platform in 1982 and then by Lotus 1-2-3 in 1983, which really brought spreadsheets to the masses (and then Excel was introduced in 1985 for the Mac and 1987 for Windows 2X). (And 36 years later Excel is still every buyer’s favourite application. Think about this the next time you proclaim the rapid advance in modern technology for the back office.)

In other words, we know the order in which people, process, and technology came into play in Procurement, and the order in which we need to address, and solve, any problems to be effective. However, what we may not fully realize, and definitely don’t want to admit, is the degree to which this cycle causes us pain as it loops back in on itself like the Ouroboros that we referenced in our recent piece on how reporting is not analysis — and neither are spreadsheets, databases, OLAP solutions, or “Business Intelligence” solutions as every piece of technology we introduce to implement a process that is supposed to help us as people introduces a new set of problems for us to solve.

Let’s take the viscous cycle created by incomplete, or inappropriate, applications for analysis, which we summarized as follows:

Tool Issue Resolution Loss of Function
Spreadsheet Data limit; lack of controls/auditability Database No dependency maintenance; no hope of building responsive models
Database performance on transactional data (even with expert optimization) OLAP Database Data changes are offline only & tedious, what-if analysis is non-viable
OLAP Database Interfaces, like SQL, are inadequate BI Application Schema freezes to support existing dashboards; database read only
BI Application Read only data and limited interface functionality Spreadsheets Loss of friendly user interfaces and data controls/auditability

This necessitated a repeat of the PPT cycle to solve the pain introduced by the tool:

Technology Pain People Process
Spreadsheet Data Limitations Figure out how to break the problem down, do multiple analysis, and summarize them Define the process to do this within the limitations of existing technology
Database Performance Issues Define a lesser analysis that will be “sufficient” and then figure out a sequence of steps that can be performed efficiently in the technology Codify each of those steps that the database was supposed to do
OLAP Stale Data Define a minimal set of updates that will satisfy the current analysis Create a process to do those updates and then re-run the exact same analysis that led to the identification of stale data
BI Tool inability to change underlying rollups / packaged views define a minimal set of additional rollups / views to address the current insight needs, as mandated by the C-suite create a process to take the system offline, encode them, put the system back online, and then do the necessary analysis

In other words, while every piece of technology you implement should solve a set of problems you currently have, it will fail to address others, introduce more, and sometimes bring to light problems you never knew you had. Although technology was supposed to end the pain cycle, the reality is that all it has ever done is set it anew.

So does that mean we should abandon technology? Not in the least. We wouldn’t survive in the modern business world anymore without it. What it means is that a technology offering is only a solution if it

  1. solves one or more of the most significant problems we are having now
  2. without introducing problems that are as significant as the problems we are solving

In other words, technology should be approached like optimization (which, in our world is typically strategic sourcing decision optimization or network optimization). Just like each potential solution returned by a proper mathematical optimization engine should provide a result better than the previous, each successive technology implementation or upgrade should improve the overall business scenario by both solving the worst problems and minimizing the overall severity of the problems not yet addressed by technology.

This is why it’s really important to understand what your most significant business problems are, and what processes would best solve them, before looking for a technology solution as that will help you narrow in on the right type of solution and then the right capabilities to look for when trying to select the best particular implementation of that type of technology for you.