Category Archives: SaaS

Software Acquisition Insider Tips 2026 Part II

It’s been 17 years since SI published its first major series on generic insider tips back in 2009 where we gave you a lot of advice that more-or-less still stands today if you want to safely acquire software. Yesterday we over-viewed what those 11 pieces of advice were then, and summarized the 6 major difference that affect how you apply that advice today so you can continue to make the right decisions when acquiring software in the age of AI Hype and exaggerated I2O claims. Starting today, we address the major points and what you look for.

Don’t Get Blind-Sided

There are two primary ways you’re going to get blind-sided with tech acquisitions in a modern Procurement organization. The first is still as it was 17 years ago — IT. In many organizations, IT still has too much power over software acquisition. Where the software is cross-department and enterprise core, it should have a considerable say, but for department/function specific apps or apps that sit on top of the core platforms, IT’s influence should be limited. But in organizations where IT still has too much sway, when IT decides it doesn’t like one of your choices, it can step in and, in a very public way say “we already have a product that can do that with extra licenses (and we just need to add one module)” or “it won’t work with our infrastructure, but this other product we’ve been looking at will” and, even if both of their suggestions definitely won’t do what you need them to do from a functionality requirement, it doesn’t matter, the damage is done, your selection (which might have undergone months of research and negotiation) is dead and it will be all you can do to prevent the bad choice from being mandated by the COO or CFO.

As we said before, this does happen but can often be easily prevented simply by taking the time to get IT on board before you present your suggestion and, preferably, before you even make the final selection. Find out day one any absolute and desired requirements they have, incorporate those that are truly absolute and relevant into your RFP, and be sure to convince IT up front that your process addresses your needs and theirs. Then get IT on board with the selection before going to the C-Suite.

Speaking of the C-Suite, this is the second primary way you’re likely to get blindsided. In the age of AI Hype, when every CXO is being convinced that, if they don’t have AI they’re going to fall behind, chances are they’re going to have their favourite overpriced Big X consultancy make a provider recommendation for whatever tech they think you need and then tell you after they’ve signed the deal that provider X with BS “AI” product Y is your new solution, and you better make it work because they just blew the software budget for the next 3 years.

This will generally be last generation junk with a bit of automation being sold as next gen AI or a hallucinatory Gen-AI LLM in a shiny wrapper with no real, solid, functionality, and neither will solve your problem.

The only way you can prevent this is to ensure you’re on top of all the major C-level consulting engagements and their purpose. That Procurement is seen as central in all services and consulting as a knowledgeable provider that can not only select the right Big X partner (event though the CXO’s favourite provider often isn’t the right one, you will never convince a CXO with a predetermined mindset otherwise) but ensure the organization gets the best deal possible. That Procurement should be kept apprised to ensure the invoices are accurate and the services delivered. That way you can understand what they’re looking for and monitor how the engagements are evolving, and once you see that the goal is to identify a product or service that will impact, or, even worse, be forced upon, Procurement, you can start educating the C suite as to what a true solution is, what the organization really needs, and how to weed out the charlatan solution providers from the real ones. You may still get stuck with a sub-optimal solution, because the C-Suite will insist on a big-name vendor with “AI” inside, but at least you’ll get one that at least partially solves the problem you have.

Watch Out for the Big Lies

Traditionally, the big lie was that many software vendor sales reps would lie and say “yes, we have that capability” when asked if their software could do something specific even if it couldn’t because, if asked to demonstrate it, they could say “it’s in beta and we can demo it next time ” (and assume their team could get it done, or at least enough fakery done, to convince you, by the next demo).

But now we have a new lie — and it’s the biggest lie of all. AI (or AGI) exists, it can do whatever you need it to, and its your new employee. And CEOs, supposed to be brilliant leaders, are falling for this BS left, right, and center. There’s no AI, Gen-AI hallucinates unpredictably on a regular basis, and it’s just as likely to bankrupt your business on a single buy than save you $1. As Joël Collin-Demers stated in his AI post (linked in this post), vendors with real AI (where AI stands for Augmented Intelligence, as that’s the best you can get)
tell you exactly what they do, in which sequence [to employ it], and [help you] understand how it solves your exact problem. They don’t sell just on AI hype, they show actual solutions.

There’s a reason I’ve advised you repeatedly to ban “AI” from your RFP responses and kick out any vendor that leads with AI, and that’s because those vendors are mostly, if not only, selling BS.

Software Acquisition Insider Tips 2026 – The Terms Have Changed But the Game Remains The Same

SI has been giving you best practice advice on acquiring software to solve your extended sourcing and procurement (related) needs since the beginning, with deep dives into every major technology you might need, and deep exposes on (fake) tech that didn’t work.

However, it’s first major series on generic insider tips on software acquisition was back in 2009 when it published a seven-part series on the seven-shards of software acquisition that gave you a lot of advice that more-or-less still stands today. In a nutshell that advice was:

  • don’t get blindsided by IT
  • watch out for the big lie
  • chuck the checklist
  • wait for the blush to leave the rose
  • read the contract
  • forego the escrow
  • draft a real unbiased RFP
  • … streamlined for performance, not wokeness
  • separate software from service
  • monitor the market
  • skip the mind games

And it more or less stands today. The main differences are where the sideswipes come from, what the big lie is, what you have to look for in the contract, what you really need in place of the escrow, how software and services are blurring in new ways, and what to look for in the market. The rest remains the same. So to ensure you know what to look for and that you continue to get the best deals on your software (because, regardless of what new fangled terms are used to describe it, or the delivery mechanisms, it’s all still software), we’re going to revisit these series and make the necessary updates.

IDC Misses the Main Point Completely. Outcomes is a Dirty Word!

Sorry, Paul, but when you say MNR is directionally right here, but I think the market still understates how hard “outcomes” actually are, and reference an IDC article, you’re off. The only part that’s right is that AI price wars miss the point (that you probably shouldn’t be using [Gen-]AI to begin with).

Outcomes only matter more … to the vendors. Because the meaning of outcomes in the vendor vernacular has NOTHING to do with results, but how they can spin their story to grift you as much as possible. As I clearly explained in my series on how Outcomes is a Dirty Word, which I now have to revisit, “outcomes” is always a way to charge you more for less (and sometimes next to nothing).

And it all has to do with (Gen)-AI costing way more than what the vendors want you to believe.

As per my initial post, while once exclusively the verbiage of GPOs, who wanted you to turn over a significant share of your procurement to them (to the point you’d be dependent on them and their ever-increasing cost of service for the entire existence of your business), or recovery audit firms, who wanted you to believe their services were the only way to recover your overspend, it’s now on the tip of every snake-slit tongue of every vendor rep.

While the vendor reps want you to believe that the reason you pay for “outcomes” instead of traditional SaaS pricing is that their AI will deliver immediate, measurable, results (instead of just transaction cost reductions where it will take at least a year to measure savings), and therefore you should pay (dearly) for those outcomes up front (because a success today is a CEO pat on the head today), that’s not the real reason. (Especially when those projected savings from the auto-sourcing and procurement events will never materialize.)

The real reason they are pushing for outcome-based pricing is that (Gen)-AI compute costs are now so high (and won’t compress as the energy and cooling costs keep rising as the majority of existing data centers are on already overstrained grids) that they can’t afford to sell the solution using a traditional SaaS based pricing model — they wouldn’t even cover their compute costs! (Most of which is wasted since most of what is being “automated” by these solutions can be automated by traditional A-RPA SaaS solutions for a fraction of the cost, as long as you don’t need a natural language interface or slick UX — and you don’t!)

The reality is that the software (assisted) solution from any vendor selling on an “outcome” model isn’t worth it, and (Gen-)AI forgets what software is supposed to be about — enabling efficiency so Human Intelligence (HI!) can achieve outcomes using low-cost Augmented Intelligence solutions.

And until a new generation of AI emerges where hallucinations aren’t a core function, measurability and confidence are restored, and compute costs are inline with classic AI tech, AI models won’t become utilities. We are years away from a systems problem!

The only way to get value is, as Paul pointed out, to redesign workflows, align incentives, clean up constraints, and embed decision logic into execution and find fairly priced modern tech with orchestration and “real” AI (in the form of Augmented Intelligence built on best-of-breed analytics, optimization, and machine learning) that will allow you to make decisions 10 times faster AND 10 times better.

The vendors who ultimately win when the AI crash hits will be those that built real tech on tried-and-true analytical, optimization, and machine learning models that will, as Paul states:

  • drastically reduce cycle times,
  • minimize manual intervention (via A-RPA where the response to every exception remembered, encoded, and applied to all future instances),
  • improve overall compliance,
  • increase throughput, and, ultimately
  • allow for better decisions.

And, as Paul points out, that’s not building yet another chatbot. That’s building real systems that work!

And, FYI, Gen-AI is not feature theatre. It’s puppet theatre! And while puppet theatre may provide entertainment, it’s not a viable business model!

Exact Purchasing Helps You Define Your Tech Needs

In our last post we illuminated how Busch-Lamoureux Exact Purchasing required Category Intelligence (not just the Category Management most Procurement organizations aren’t yet doing) and, thus, ups your Procurement game in more ways than one. Many more ways than one, actually.

Only with Exact Purchasing can you figure out what you actually need from your Procurement technology, If you go back to our piece on assisted solution selection is a seven stair methodology, step 1 is understanding your needs. By breaking your procurement needs into categories you can specify to a high degree of detail, you get an understanding of what you really need to do in your Procurement organization.

In the seven stair methodology, step 2 is the holistic solution requirement — and this is what is embodied in Exact Purchasing! With exact purchasing, you are holistically evaluating a category from all key perspectives — complexity, risk, and organizational impact — and creating sourcing, procurement, supplier, and supply management plans that balance the requirements from a holistic requirement.

Step 3 is organizational maturity, and here’s what most Procurement organizations miss — the lack of a proper, formal, category management strategy that allows them to start on the journey to Procurement excellence through better processes, risk management, and intelligence is what holds them back. Exact Purchasing gives them a foundation to not only figure out where they are on their Procurement journey but where they need to go and what process improvements might get them there.

Step 4 is vendor pool selection, and here’s where exact purchasing really starts to help as it helps you identify what the tech has to do, which helps you (possibly with help from an expert analyst or consultant) identify what type of Procurement tech you really need, and then you can use an independent analyst or consultant (who doesn’t have to sycophantically cater to the bejeweled emerald software partner in order to maintain that bejeweled emerald status that sees a lot of integration work thrown his way as long as he maintains it) to identify the vendors most likely to be a great fit for you.

Step 5 is the vendor assessment process, which is itself a 7 step process — and Exact Purchasing helps you out end-to-end here.

Step 5a is RFI creation. With Exact Purchasing, you know what the critical functionality is, you can easily specify what it is, and then quickly eliminate any vendor that can’t meet 100% of the critical must-have for your organization before wasting any significant time on them.

Step 5b is collaborative RFI review. Once you’ve eliminated those that you’re certain won’t fit, if too many vendors survive the cut, the team is educated on both what is needed and what will make their lives easier and can holistically assess initial responses to narrow down to the providers that go beyond the basics in ways that might be helpful.

Step 5c is the qualifying demo. You can create a script that not only covers all the essentials, but should haves that will help illuminate where the key strengths and weaknesses are likely to be both in the given vendor’s application but the vendor pool over all and get the insight you need to ensure that you’re both on the right path and that the vendors you select for the RFP will be worth the next stage review.

Step 5d is the RFP creation. From here you can elaborate all the should have and nice to have functionality, double down on your key pain points that you would like solved (potentially in innovative ways), note what intelligence is critical, identify where you’d like services and support, and identify any must-have organizational requirements beyond Procurement that would be a deal-breaker. You’re able to focus on the what, instead of the typical 500 point feature list where half the features you might never use.

Step 5e is the RFP review, where again the team has the understanding on what to look for and can ensure that any vendor who wouldn’t make the cut doesn’t get invited to the full demo stage.

Step 6 is the full demo where each vendor provides a two-part demo against the basic deep dive should have script the RFP was based on and detailed requests based upon claims they made in the RFP against nice-to-haves, uniqueness, process improvements that will save you time and money beyond what peers can do, etc.

Step 7 is the decision, and you can make that against what the vendors offer relative to your category needs and organizational goals, not just a feature list you don’t understand (but copied from a Free RFP anyway because you needed to look competent).

In other words, Exact Purchasing gives you the understanding you need to go to market, and the understanding that not every solution may be appropriate for every category — and that’s okay. Sometimes two or three targeted BoB solutions are still less than half of the cost of a mega-suite that still only solves half of your problems.

The Proliferation of AI-Generated Content Guised As Research is Damaging Our Space!

Real Research Requires Real Human Intelligence and Effort

(I’m not here to be nice. I’m here to educated and inform. Something most sites, including LinkedIn, are doing very little of lately!)

Joël Collin-Demers recently made the understatement of the year when he said 15 functionalities comparing ZIP to Jaggaer isn’t analysis/comparison, it’s pattern-matching by an LLM with no domain context. At best it’s unhelpful. At worst it points procurement leaders toward the wrong tools entirely in response to, with no due respect, a complete crock of AI sh!t published by TEEM.Finance (and reported by a TEEM member who claims instant supplier sourcing & portfolio analysis, with AI# in the tagline, which is another crock of AI sh!t that I must also address).

First of all, at best someone selects an inferior product, wastes a lot of time and money, and ends up in a situation where they are still limping along trying to get basic tasks done with yet another platform that doesn’t come close to delivering on its promise while doing nothing to deliver an increased return on the large amount of money spent on SaaS supposed to solve the organization’s Procurement pain.

At worst, it points the buyer to a product that costs five times as much, doesn’t even accomplish core use cases (if the product works at all outside the demo lab), and results in an absolute disaster upon implementation (with next to zero adoption and more bypass than the organization has ever seen due to the lack of core capability) that results in the organization having to issue another RFP and go through the whole process again with a jaded and angry employee base who expects nothing good will come of it.

The danger of a poor Procurement product pick cannot be understated or underestimated. Nothing will cripple an overworked and under-resourced Procurement department faster than a bad platform (and doubly so if it contains [Autonomous] Gen-AI)!

So, with so many bad product comparisons and maps out there (including Gartner’s and Forrester’s), which I have tackled repeatedly on Sourcing Innovation, why the need to target this one? Because while Gartner and Forrester can be relied on to give you the generally best bet from among their customers which have been confirmed to have relatively equal core functionality,

  1. a random comparison between two different players based on a mere 15 data points that are randomly selected and called “use cases” only guarantees they both exist in the Source-to-Pay space,
  2. any use of AI is flawed from the get-go,
  3. and any comparison that scores Zip 94% and Jaggaer 100% is obviously a complete and utter crock of AI generated sh!t

Let’s revisit Joel’s comment where he calls out Solution Map (which Hackett will hopefully keep).

  • Over 500 clearly defined functions are scored on a scale of technical progression (from 0 to 5). Not 50. And definitely not 15!
  • A 100% based on TODAY’S known Best-In-Class functionality would require a Solution Map score of 4.0. Most suites averaged in the 2.5 to 3 range (average to slightly above). Jaggaer is no exception (and Zip is still far from a suite, it’s I2O slowly adding baseline procurement capabilities, not S2P). (Remember, I DESIGNED the core Sourcing, Supplier Management, Analytics, and Contract Management [this one joint with Pierre Mitchell] maps and DESIGNED the common core across all the maps for Solution Map 2.0. And I scored them for 7 years.)
  • They DO NOT cover everything … there’s always innovation, and always edge cases we ignored (as the goal was to produce a useful map for the majority).
  • They were TECH and CUSTOMER SATISFACTION only. And you need to assess more than that to select a vendor (as per our Successful Vendor Selection series). (And, sometimes, you have to figure out what you should even be looking at, which is why I penned a 39 part series to walk you though the thought process (and Joel, stop complaining about having to write an 8,500 word series on P2P functional requirements … you’re just getting started).
  • And they compared apples-to-apples. This report compares apple-to-oranges, as it’s conclusions are “choose JAGGAER ONE if your organization manages direct materials, manufactures products, or operates in a heavily regulated sector” or “choose ZipHQ if your procurement team needs to configure complex approval workflows across IT, Legal, and Finance without technical resources“, which effectively boils down to “choose Jaggaer if you need Source-to-Pay, and “choose Zip if you need Intake to Orchestration” which is a recommendation that DOES NOT require you to read a report to figure out. All you need to know is
    1. Jaggaer is Source to Pay.
    2. Zip is Intake to Orchestration

    and the answer becomes pretty f*ck!ng obvious!

In order to be useful, at a bare minimum, this is what a comparison needs to do. Define the product domain being compared. Identify the extent of core, should have, and nice-to-have functions required by a product to support the product domain (based on standard functionality and domain use cases). Create a maturity definition for each function. And then use HUMAN INTELLIGENCE to score each product selected for inclusion (on actual demos from the vendor or willing partners and/or current customers). Not bullsh!t Gen-AI that can be fooled by bullcr@p marketing!

Anything less is not a meaningful product comparison. It’s simply an exploration against a few points of interest.

Now, if that’s human led, that can be useful as supplementary material in a decision. After all, the Solution Map will merely grade functionality like flexible workflow configuration on a standard scale but won’t track specifics of how it’s done, how user friendly vs. partner friendly vs. vendor friendly the configuration is, actual customer use cases where the workflows had to intersect 3 or more departments and average customer sentiment on that feature, or provide any other color that might help you make a decision when two solutions look acceptable from a technical and customer satisfaction perspective.

So, if TEEM.finance or someone else wanted to hand pick the most common / relevant use cases, dive in, do a human review, and present their analysis as key points to consider — that would be awesome, and a great excuse to keep writing (so long as said writing is NOT turned over to [Gen-]AI)!

After all, I’m not going to do it (because, frankly, I’m not interested in seeing the same old functionality over and over [as I already saw, and wrote, about it all multiple times — and you should be able to access that if you have a Hackett Membership] as most of the suites have done little to upgrade anything in the last few years as they have switched private equity ownership and bled key talent), and neither are most analysts (who have to cover more vendors than most can handle — remember, there are over 700 vendors in our space, and if you don’t believe me, I again refer you to the mega-map of 666 vendors SI compiled for you).

But it has to be a real review, based on a real demo and/or real discussions with customers, and not AI in any way, shape or form. Otherwise, at best, it’s sl0p. At worst, it’s the written word equivalent of toxic waste. And let’s NOT forget that and continue to fight against the use of AI where AI should NOT be used!

Now, as to the other crock of sh!t, namely instant supplier sourcing & portfolio analysis, with AI. There’s no instant. Yes, there are some great tools out there that can identify a list of potentially relevant suppliers in seconds, compared to the weeks of manual searching you might have had to do in the past, and there are tools out there that can automate sourcing ONCE you have identified your precise item needs, your price tolerances, and your pre-vetted supply base … but, guess what, AI CAN NOT DO all the stuff in between, especially if the product (or category) is high-risk, high-complexity, or high-impact (under the Busch-Lamoureux Exact Purchasing Framework).*

You have to vet the supplier. You have to make sure it’s still operating, the license certificates, registrations, and insurance are both real and current, that the products are still offered, that they are real (by getting a sample), that they will suit your needs, and that the supplier is capable of producing the quantity you need in the time-frame you need it in. You then have to qualify the risks and impact, sign off on them, and enter the supplier (and approvals) in the system. Then you have to define the sourcing project, your tolerance, and your conditions for bid acceptance. YOU! Not BS AI!

In other words, there’s nothing instant about it … and for a highly complex product, or category, that could be days or weeks of manual human work even after all the tactical drudgery is automated for you. So, while a tagline that said faster supplier sourcing and portfolio analysis, with AI, would be 100% true, a tagline that says instant is inherently false. (Unless, of course, your risk tolerance is sky high and you don’t care if the worst case scenario hits and destroys your business … so if you’re looking to be the next Eddie Lampert and dismantle a 100+ Billion company [in today’s dollars] in record time, go for it!)

# name and image hidden as I’m not entirely sure it’s not a bot auto-publishing AI slop

* to be totally honest, you can’t even expect AI to be reliable for low-risk, low-complexity, and low-impact products/categories either, but since the impact of the mistakes it’s going to make will probably require less manual effort to clean up than dealing with all of those products manually, you can potentially live with it