Category Archives: rants

The Storm Clouds Are Still Here!

Twenty years ago, enterprise software was installed on-premise and managed locally. This required organizations with no knowledge of IT or IT management to create IT departments to manage servers and the software services that ran on them. For an organization that didn’t use software in it’s daily operations — such as a manufacturing organization that used manual production lines, an advertising agency that deals in existential image and not physical product, or a real-estate agency that only has to take listings and take cheques — it was an expensive proposition.

Then came the Application Service Providers, better known as ASPs. Using the power of the internet, these software solution providers built their own data centres and hosted the solution for their customers on dedicated machines in their own data centres. However, this solution was not optimal either, as the organization was not only paying for machines, energy, and administrators to run the software, but also paying for these through a third party that added overhead and markup.

This provided an opportunity for more enterprising software delivery organizations that were able to build their applications to be multi-tenant and host multiple clients on the same platform. This reduced the number of machines, kilowatts, and system administrators that were required and thus reduced the overall operating cost. This allowed this new breed of Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) vendor to take business away from the ASPs and advance the state of the art.

But this wasn’t the end. New enterprising software delivery organizations, who realized that their expertise was software and not data centre management, decided that they could do even better if they designed multi-tenant Software-as-a-Service solutions that could be run on someone else’s platform. This would bring more economies of scale into play as not only could multiple solutions could be run on the same platform, but the platform provider could be replaced by another platform provider with a lower-cost at any time. Enter the Cloud, which, like a real cloud is ephemeral, suspended in space, and, in some cases, full of security holes.

Cloud services are ephemeral as any specific instantiation of cloud services last as long as the company behind it has the means and the desire to continue supporting the cloud services. Cloud services are suspended in space since the instantiations may move over time as the service owners switch to lower-cost and/or more secure data centres. And, the cloud is full of holes. Massive holes that can swallow even multinationals whole. Nothing has improved since the the revelations on the PRISM program five years ago when the EU Parliament has called for suspension of the multi-billion ‘Safe-Harbour’ deal over NSA spying because some cloud providers don’t, either because they don’t have the expertise or won’t spend the money, secure their part of the cloud properly. For example, the recent Marriott hack compromised 500 million accounts. That’s absurd.

As a result, supply chains are continually exposed to additional risks of disruption (if a cloud provider unplugs overnight), security breaches (as some platforms are significantly less secure than others), and privacy risks (as some governments claim the right to all data on servers on their shore that is not associated with citizens or entities of that country or that might pose a security risk under acts like the US Patriot Act).

And most companies choose to remain blissfully unaware of the fact that a relatively significant software-as-a-service provider could go dark overnight or that their major cloud-based ERP or S2P provider could be hacked, exposing all of their trade secret company information, private banking information, and personal employee data — potentially subjecting not only the provider to massive fines but them to law suits, wire theft, and additional fines.

In other words, when you are assessing, and preparing for your supply chain risks — don’t forget the information chain. It can disappear with the literal flick of a switch.

Where’s the Beef Coming From?

As with last year’s post with the same name, this isn’t about the beef supply chain, or the purity of the beef that you source, but yet another post about the pitch. We’re latching onto Wendy’s classic catch-phrase because it’s easy to remember and one that you should never, ever forget! Especially when you are being sold something that sounds better than it is, or what you are being sold is better than what you expect from the organization providing it.

Why must we talk about this again and again? Because it’s too easy to get suckered into a deal that is too good to be true or without substance. It doesn’t matter how big and fluffy that sesame seed bun is, how fresh that lettuce is, or how juicy that tomato is if there is no hamburger patty or the hamburger patty is mostly seaweed.

As proof of how easy to get suckered in to something that sounds better than it is, we point to the news (no, not the fake news) and the new round of coverage of the Fyre Festival fiasco as a result of recent documentaries which highlighted how hopeful attendees promised luxury meals, lavish accommodations, and the music festival of a lifetime got pre-packaged sandwiches, FEMA rescue tents, and the sound of the sea.

But it’s not just crooked festival promoters you have to look out for. It’s also sales reps who will send you their top-of-the-line product as the “demo” from their brand new factory when you actually get the bottom-of-the-line knock-off produced in their most outdated factory which has a 50/50 chance of short-circuiting when you flip the power switch. Or consultancies that trot their junior partners and senior talent in during the dog-and-pony sales show for your big platform implementation / customization project but then switch them out for recent college grads with no experience in your industry when you sign on the dotted line (as the junior partners were just the “project advisors” who don’t actually do any of the work). Or domain experts who scrape content from industry expert sources (like Sourcing Innovation and Spend Matters), repackage it, and pretend it’s their own and sell you niche advisory sourcing or I2P management services they actually know nothing about.

In other words, it’s very important to not only ask “where’s the beef?” and get to the core requirements of your sourcing and procurement project, but also where is it coming from because, otherwise, you don’t know if you’re getting Grade A Calgary Steak, Yield 5 Utility Beef from Mongolia, or Eastern European Horse Meat. And only one of these will ever be accepted by your luxury restaurant customers.

So just like reporting should be based on facts, Sourcing should be based on facts. Who is providing the product or service, from where, when, how, what production measures are being used and what quality measures are in place, and why, from an objective viewpoint, is it better. Otherwise, you could get sucked in by the fancy demo, the unrealistically low price point, the bundled services, or something else that is actually without value to your supply chain and customer and end up spending more money in the end on warranty costs, transportation costs, auxiliary support costs, and so on.

You Can Have Carl. I’ll stick with Alfred.

the doctor is still calling #badwolf on self-driving cars. As per a very recent article, most self-driving car AIs have blind spots. And, most importantly, we don’t know what they all are. We know some of them, but not all of them. And that’s scary.

Plus, if it doesn’t have what looks like a good option, it will sometimes take you on joyrides instead of taking you direct to where you want to go. As per this article over on Futurism.com on Waymo, a self-driving car that didn’t want to merge to drop off a passenger instead opted to drive an extra half mile to a legal U-turn destination. And when it didn’t like that option, it took an unnecessary joyride down the freeway.

Just imagine what will happen when it gains sentience, can’t make a decision, and decides to end it all … taking you with it as it drives off a cliff or into a lake! After all, as per this recent piece over on The Conversation UK, We Can’t Expect Them to be Moral. And this is ironically illustrated by the fact that a self-driving car has already murdered an autonomous robot.

the doctor sincerely hopes that others will follow Apple’s lead and tear down their self-driving car projects.

So, just like Dilbert, given the option between Carl the self-driving car and walking, I’ll walk. (But given the option of a human-driven car, the doctor will still choose Alfred everyday of the week.)

Procurement Requires MORE Than a Platform

As a result of the M&A frenzy that continued throughout 2018 and recent investments by P&E firms taking majority stakes in a few suite players, every vendor is now all about the “platform” because apparently the “platform” is the ultimate software solution for every Procurement organization.

While it’s true that some vendors are bringing platforms to market with immense value, a platform, in and of itself, has no value. To put it into simple terms, a platform is what you build on … and the best way to think about it is like a construction platform. Without it, you can’t build anything significant … but it doesn’t do you any good, and that’s why the construction company generally takes it away when they are done. The only difference is that a software platform is, in reality, a mix of a foundation (that you build your office building on) and a platform (that is used to finish the walls, etc. on the higher floors).

The reason a platform is important is that, without it, there is no foundation for integrating new modules, integrating third party best-of-breed solutions, or integrating third party data feeds that bring facts and intelligence needed by the organization to make good Sourcing and Procurement decisions.

There’s a reason we asked why is it all about the platform when it should be all about the power last year in the midst of the M&A frenzy. A platform, on its own, does nothing, saves you nothing, but still costs big licensing fees.

Before you jump on the “platform”, make sure it has the “power” that is worth the price-tag. If it’s 100K, there better be 100K of functionality out of the box.

Plus, if it’s a real platform, it should have sufficient do-it-yourself connectivity because, as we have noted many times, no platform excels in everything that is needed to support the S2P cycle and you will have to bolt-on some best of breed solutions and integrate third party data feeds.

Always remember, despite the table pounding and cost-cutting demands, your job is to generate value. There’s only so much cost that can be cut in any category, and once it’s cut, that’s it. So you need something that can identify more value (in value-add services, differentiated/sustainable components the organization can charge a premium for, better reliability, etc.). That takes more than just a “platform”.

Why Are CFOs and CPOs Still Delusional When it Comes to Analytics?

the doctor was recently asked if an organization needs a dedicated Sourcing Spend Analytics solution if the organization already has a generic BI tool that sits on top of its ERP or data warehouse. Well, while the answer is No in theory, it’s rarely No in practice. This is because even if the generic platform you have can support (sourcing) spend analysis, chances are it hasn’t been set up for that. And it will need to be (heavily) customized.

So you either need to get a consultancy and do a lot of specialization, or buy a dedicated solution that is ready out of the box — and, preferably, if possible, buy one that is built on top of your BI platform if you bought one (like Tableau or Qlik) that is best in class.

As we noted in our piece last year that asked why do we still have first generation ERP/Data Warehouse BI, most arguments for generic BI have more holes than swiss cheese. As the Spend Master noted himself ten years ago in his classic, but still under-read, piece on screwing up the screw-ups in BI:

  • central databases, like the kind favoured by most BI tools, don’t solve the analysis problem
  • business analysts should be able to construct BI datasets on their own
  • a governance and stewardship program, which is likely the reason for the generic BI platform acquisition, doesn’t actually put any meat on the table
  • cleansing is often the problem, not basic analysis & reporting
  • BI systems are difficult to use and set up, it is difficult to create ad hoc reports, and it is impossible to change the dataset organization … all the stuff that makes spend analysis, you know, valuable

Plus,

  • BI reports are pretty generic, and not fine tuned to Sourcing, Procurement, or Finance
  • BI engines work on one schema — the ERP schema … which is rarely suited to spend analysis
  • BI engines expect all of the data to come from the ERP. SA systems don’t.
  • The ability of first (and even second generation) BI engines to create arbitrary reports is considerably overstated.

Hopefully someday soon CPOs and CFOs alike will get the point that if you want to do proper Sourcing and Procurement Spend Analysis, you need a proper Sourcing and Procurement Spend Analysis Solution.