Category Archives: SaaS

Despite Attempts to Simplify It, There Are MANY Categories of ProcureTech Solutions

When selecting a ProcureTech Solution, you have all the following buckets:

Function X Classic Type X SaaS Category X Integration
Sourcing
SXM
CLM
Analytics
e-Procurement Best-of-Breed Standalone App
(full function)		 Suite EcoSystem
Invoice-to-Pay Mini-Suite Lightweight App
(task specific)		 I2O Ecosystem(s)
ESG/Sustainability Suite Bolt-On
(extends a module)		 Open API
GRC
Category/Cost Intel
Niche (Legal, Marketing,
Hospitality, SaaS/Tech, etc.)
I2O

And if you do the multiplication, that’s 297 combinations … and that’s just the tip of the iceberg when there are 10 core areas of SXM, multiple niche areas being addressed (some classic solutions were just for print/telco), multiple buckets of risk management solution, generic and scope-3 specific sustainability solutions, different approaches to intake-to-orchestrate, and that’s just addressing the functional areas of Source-to-Pay+.

Then you have the situation where some vendors only offer a single best of breed (BoB) module, others offer a mini-suite, and others still offer a mega-suite with all of the core modules and often a half dozen more on top of that.

While most are SaaS apps these days, they vary from heavy standalone apps that implement full functions to lightweight apps designed for specific tasks (that are usually missing from larger standalone apps that purport to completely cover a function but don’t) to bolt-ons that offer advanced functionality, but require a core module to work on top of.

One also has to consider how you integrate them into a comprehensive workflow that supports Source-to-Pay+. Sometime modules integrate into one-or-more suite ecosystems out of the box (like the SAP Store or The Coupa Store), other times they just come with a (semi) open API, and now some, not built for integration, are integrating into one or more of the new orchestration ecosystems.

And while functionality should come first, you have to consider all of these other factors as well because if you select a suite for a module, you’re probably locking yourself into the other modules you need as those the suite offers due to cost and integration cost considerations, if you select light-weight or bolt-on apps, then you better have something to integrate them into, and you better be sure the ecosystem has all of the modules you will need to implement over the next five years or so before locking yourself into an ecosystem.

So even though THE REVELATOR believes that everything is going to be a bolt-on or an app and that’s all your going to have to worry about, unfortunately the ProcureTech world is NOT going to make it that simple. Overlooking traditional category and integration can completely destroy the value you require if you can’t easily integrate with complementary modules/apps (and especially if you are in a [primarily] direct industry and need to integrate with supply chain applications for the data you need to make good supply chain aware decisions).

However, it will be interesting to see the primary solution category, breadth, and integration of ProcureTech Solutions (by, and independent of, function) in the future.

With Suites, What you are Sold Vs. What You Get Vs. What You Need are Three VERY Different Things!

A while back, Dan Gianfreda published a piece on LinkedIn on how what you need is not what you are sold when you buy a a shiny, “all-in-one” procurement platform that is 10X bigger than what you will actually use (on a multi-year contract with a massive implementation that takes months longer than promised and ensures you don’t have the majority of the functionality you need until the contract is almost up), and he was right. But it missed the full picture. The reality is that not only are you sold 10 times more than you will use, but what you will use doesn’t cover what you need, and with a poor selection, might only be one 10th of what you actually need!

In other words, you need to see the full picture:

As outlined in the response post, just because a suite has a module, there’s no guarantee that module is anywhere close to what the organization really needs, especially when the capabilities can vary greatly (and the definitions even more so). Sourcing can be a simple RFX or a multi-staged integrated RFX/Auction platform with embedded strategic sourcing decision optimization. We still see canned reporting modules sold as “modern spend analysis” when they are anything but. And most AI claims are pure BS (or an indication that you should probably run for the hills if that’s the only selling point).

Even if the suite theoretically has the core/must have functionality the organization needs, that’s only meaningful if that functionality is implemented in a way that supports the organizational processes and policies. If approval chains are required, tamper-proof audit logs need to be in place, validated process steps are needed for public sector compliance, and so on — and the suite has none of those, it don’t matter how user friendly, integrated, or “powerful” it is because the organization will NOT be able to use it.

Moreover, the core functionality differs by organizational type and since most platforms only do one of indirect, direct, services, capex projects, or tailspend well, selecting the wrong suite will render it totally useless for the majority of sourcing/procurement projects, which will add insult to injury of the huge cash outlay you agreed to (for an ROI that will never, ever, materialize).

Moreover, as previously indicated, you can NEVER assume that all (or sometimes, even any) of the solution providers will:

  • ask the right questions to understand the challenges
  • do the right due diligence to ensure their solution will solve those challenges
  • be honest about their capabilities (or, outside of the dev team, even understand those capabilities)

because, chances are, as I have indicated many times, everyone in the ecosystem exists to make money off of YOU, but not necessarily to help you. (Especially when too many vendors took too much money and are now under extreme pressures to fulfill ridiculous growth requirements in just a few years or risk massive layoffs, being folded into a bigger player, or getting dropped from the portfolio entirely before going bankrupt.) There’s no time to do it right, just to sell, sell, sell. (Which is why we keep advocating employing an independent consultant to help you with selection, project planning, and project assurance — since their remuneration depends on helping you, not someone else.)

So remember this before you start looking at big suites as there is a good chance you’ll likely be paying 10 times what you should be (based on what you are using) while still only getting 25% of what you actually need in the best case. (And there’s nothing wrong with building your own Best-of-Breed ecosystem, even if you need to add an orchestration player to that mix, if that is what maximizes the return on every dollar spent.)

How AI Enhances 10 Common Procurement Challenges Part II

A recent CIO article drew my ire because it claimed that AI Overcomes 10 Common Procurement Challenges as it oversimplified the problems and overstated the benefits of AI. Let’s finish them one-by-one.

Legacy Systems Complicate the Adoption of New Technology: The article claims AI streamlines integration by assessing system compatibility, automating migration, and reducing downtime. While two out of three ain’t bad, it ain’t good when the critical requirement of assessing system compatibility cannot be met by AI — since simple text matching isn’t helpful if the interface of a legacy system isn’t specified in a standard format (as otherwise it’s essentially field-name matching, which is no different than human guesswork). The reality is that humans still have to define/verify the mappings before the AI can take over.

Letting AI do the mappings is fraught with errors. And its even worse when you let it automatically connect systems, pull and push data, replicate incorrectly mapped and bad data across systems, and “fix” data that was actually correct on system integration because the “bad” data in one system is used to overwrite the good data in another system just because it appeared to be more recent. Because it’s automated, AI can propagate and exacerbate errors at an unprecedented rate and in a matter of seconds make a mess that can take months to repair.

Managing Supplier Risks is a Growing Concern: AI can continuously monitor supplier performance, predict risks, and ensure compliance. This is one situation where they were almost perfectly correct, but, when they say vendor evaluation can be time intensive and imply that AI can speed it up, they overlook the fact that evaluations still have to be done by humans and tech can’t speed that up.

Moreover, if you think you can augment your data with third party data to speed up the evaluations, you’re just fooling yourself. You just make bad decisions faster.

Manual Procurement Process Drain Resources: AI can definitely automate repetitive tasks, reduce human error, increase efficiency, and free your team to focus on strategic initiatives, but only for tasks that are well defined, typically free from exception, and capable of being processed by standard rules. However, this can’t be done until the repetitive tasks are identified, processing rules defined, standard exceptions identified, and additional rules defined. Only then can the AI automate enough to be useful.

Moreover, using a next-gen LLM with chain-of-compute to try to break the requirements of a task down into subtasks, execute those subtasks automatically, and automate a process without any human intervention is just as likely to go wrong as it is to go right.

Demand Forecasting is Often Inaccurate : AI can improve demand forecasting, but only if you have the right data — it’s not a magic box, just a black box that you need to understand.

It’s not just demand trend based on utilization / point of sale data, its also market conditions which can sharply change a demand curve overnight … traditional curve fitting / machine learning that most “AI” is based on cannot detect a change in market conditions or a political situation that can cause a rapid change in demand.

Procurement Remains Transactional Rather Than Strategic: AI DOES NOT transform procurement into a strategic function that optimizes spend, improves supplier collaboration, and aligns purchasing decisions with your business! Only people-powered Human Intelligence (HI!) can do that. Remember — transforming Procurement requires defining a strategy, defining appropriate processes, identifying the right people to transform it, and then, and only then, identifying the right technologies.

Assuming that you can slap in AI and transform a tactical function into a strategic one is worse than a pipe dream, it’s a recipe for disaster. Running fast and hard doesn’t get you any closer to the finish line if it’s not in the right direction. For more details, see the dozens of posts about AI in the archives.

Again, we’re not saying that AI is bad. Technology is neither good nor bad. But, like any technology, it has to be ready for prime time, correctly identified, correctly implemented, and correctly used — and that requires a lot of Human Intelligence (HI!) and planning, and the right processes put in place. Shoving it in and expecting a miracle is dangerous. And this is yet another article that implies you can just shove it in and get results. And you can’t. Especially if it’s the wrong technology, which can enhance your problem instead of shrinking it. That’s the problem. This article, like many others, doesn’t tell you about the dangers and downfalls and what you have to do to avoid them.

How AI Enhances 10 Common Procurement Challenges Part I

A recent CIO article drew my ire because it claimed that AI Overcomes 10 Common Procurement Challenges as it oversimplified the problems and overstated the benefits of AI. Let’s take them one-by-one.

Procurement Takes Too Long, Slowing Innovation: According to the article, AI-driven platforms can generate RFPs, accelerate sourcing, automate approvals, and reduce cycle times … which is mostly true. Properly applied, AI can accelerate sourcing, reduce cycle times, and automate approvals … but not all approvals. As for RFP generation, that’s very limited — LLMs can generate RFPs with a simple prompt, but not necessarily a good RFP. The best RFPs are designed by humans (and then automation, which may or may not use AI, can pull in data from supporting documents as needed), and as for acceleration, it depends on the project — it can’t speed up supplier qualification where humans need to inspect the products and verify the requirements.

Moreover, a rush to AI can make things worse, and not better. Letting AI generate an RFP that misses a key requirement in terms of required certifications, performance criteria, production capacity, etc. can entirely invalidate an RFP process and lead to months of wasted effort if no human realizes that this key requirement was missed until an award is offered and a request for the certification, capacity, etc. is delivered and a “sorry, we don’t have / can’t do that” is returned.

Legal and Budget Complexities Create Bottlenecks: Budget tracking systems and rules-based automation allows for instantaneous budgetary approvals. Contract negotiation software can automate redlining, compliance checks, etc., but cannot handle a complex negotiation for a complex project where each side has a lot of requirements and multiple parties to satisfy. AI speeds up the technical drudgery, but not the human interaction.

Moreover, if you turn over negotiations to software, you have no idea what the end result will be. If you let it negotiate based on market data, and the cost data is off, you could be committing to a bad deal. If you let it predict timeframes based on how it expects prices to rise/stay high, but it’s off by two years, it could lock you into a three year deal when you only need a one year deal. And so on.

CIOs Need to Upskill Their Teams in AI and Cybersecurity: Just because “AI” can simplify processes with guided intelligence, that doesn’t mean the team is upskilled in the process. The reality is, there is no incentive for users to learn anything if they think the system will guide them in everything they need to do.

Thus, if you over invest in AI, especially the kind that guides users in every task they have to do, and works quite well on the basic tasks they have to do daily, and doesn’t screw up the first half dozen or so moderately complex tasks, the user will believe the system is almost flawless, start to trust it implicitly, stop questioning it as time goes on, start believing there is no need to learn anything else because the system knows it, and, over time, stop thinking. And then, instead of performance improving, it will decline … and that decline might be accompanied by a major financial loss if a bad contract is signed or major risk ignored.

Data Inaccuracy Leads to Poor Procurement Decisions: While it’s true that over three quarters of organizations struggle with unreliable data, AI doesn’t magically fix the problem. It can help with cleansing, validation, and procurement trend analysis, but ask any spend analysis vendor who has tried to apply an LLM to unclassified vendors about the classification accuracy (which tends to top out around 70%) — good data still requires manual cleansing and classification, especially where the system reports good confidence. It can definitely help, but it doesn’t take the onus off of the human.

In other words, if you believe that you can plug in a magic AI black box ad that it will fix your data, you are gravely mistaken. Sure it will tell you that it has cleansed, classified, and validated all of your data, but if it’s only 70% accurate, it’s only made matters worse if you trust the data 100% and don’t know what 30% is inaccurate. When you base your decisions on data, and the data is bad, you are bound to make a bad decision. The question is, how bad. You don’t know. And that’s a big problem!

B2B Software Selection is Increasingly Complex: Moreover, despite the claims, AI-powered vendor analysis doesn’t really help that much — see Pierre Mitchell’s crazy conversations with DeepSeek-Rq. Note how it not only recommends inappropriate vendors, but also recommends vendors that don’t even exist anymore … it can help you discover potential vendors, but you still need human reviews and deep pricing intelligence (from expert SaaS optimizers).

Trusting AI to select your software is worse than trusting an analyst firm map! And we know all of the problems those maps contain. (First of all, they only mention the same 10 to 20 vendors year after year, ignoring the dozens of other vendors that might be more appropriate for you.) AI cannot understand your needs, cannot truly map needs to requirements, cannot truly map requirements to features, and cannot truly assess how relevant a solution is, and definitely can’t assess how well a provider’s culture will match yours.

Come back Thursday for Part II!

Accept It! You ARE Selecting Obsolete Tech.

But that’s not necessarily a bad thing.

In a recent LinkedIn article, Joel said that digital procurement is like a pie eating contest, and while we’re not sure we agree, he made one valid point:

The system you select is already heading toward obsolescence the moment you go live.

But it’s worse than that!

1) It’s heading toward obsolescence from the minute the implementation starts … you have no idea the technical debt in the systems you are being sold today from the build fast, scale faster, fix it later mentality infused by VCs and most PE firms!

2) It was probably obsolete when you selected it, especially if you chose a vendor who has been leading the same Gartner and Forrester maps for 10 years with no significant changes to their product or platform!

3) Even worse, chances are that the process you digitized makes you outdated anyways and keeps you that way — digitization is the best time for identifying not how things work, but the way they should work to maximize efficiency and minimize risk (and that’s not, as we continually point out, jumping on the Gen AI / Agentric AI bandwagon and being blinded by the hype).

4) Moreover, you really shouldn’t need different channels (i.e. completely different apps) to source, just different workflows and interfaces, but since most providers don’t do more than one category (among indirect, direct, services, capex projects, etc.), you likely need MORE apps. Moreover, few suites have more than one or two modules that are truly best of breed (despite their claims), so if you don’t plan for the constant upgrades and bolts ons … well … you won’t be ready when you have to select and implement one quick, and then you’ll have even more obsolescence than you planned for.

That doesn’t mean that you should give up on modern tech because it’s all obsolete, because it’s not, and the good vendors recognize this and continually update their tech to minimize the obsolescence. It does mean that you need to be very careful when selecting your tech to find a solution that has minimal technical debt, is beyond where you are at today with respect to the processes it supports, and is being continually enhanced by the vendor. If the vendor offers a truly best of breed solution, is beyond where you are today, and has a track record of keeping up with best practices, and best tech, it’s likely a good vendor.

Especially if the tech today is considerably enhanced against the tech it had two to three years ago (which you should be able to determine by looking up old demo videos, articles, independent reviews, etc.).

However, if you can’t tell any difference between the (mega) suite tech being pushed at you today vs. what the (mega) suite tech were advertising five years ago, then you should probably stay away. Far, Far Away.