Category Archives: Sourcing Innovation

In ProcureTech, Stop Caring What Gartner, Forrester, or IDC Thinks!

I shouldn’t have to address this again, but every year multiple vendors reach out and ask how to get on these vendors maps because they believe it’s the only way to get more market visibility and/or be selected by certain customers, including you. It’s not the only way to get visibility and if a vendor can’t convince a potential customer from thinking that only map companies are good, I’ll tell them this right now — that’s not a customer they want (because that vendor will be out on the renewal with whatever vendor overtakes them in the map when the CPO changes in 3 years, because companies without vision to look beyond a meaningless map don’t keep real talent, and only real talent will identify and select the best solution and ensure that solution is kept over time).

But I digress — this post is about you, the potential customer, and why you need to STOP caring what Gartner, Forrester, or IDC thinks.

First of all, we’ve said it before, and we’ll say it again: It’s NOT the Analyst Firm. It’s the Analyst!.

In addition to all of the skillsets and education that an analyst needs to have to get it right, which we covered in detail in that post, the analyst needs a lot of relevant experience, and history in the ProcureTech space, to make sense of the ProcureTech world today. Ask yourself: how many of the analysts with the right education have at least 10 years in our space? The answer is very few. How many have 20 years in (independent) analyst roles? You can count them on your fingers. I know of myself, Jon Hansen, Pierre Mitchell, and Chris Sawchuk with 20 years of (independent) analyst experience in our space and a deep technical (STEM) education. Everyone else who started covering this space day in, day out two decades ago has moved on or retired. Now, of these analysts, how many have also built actual solutions in the ProcureTech space, connecting the dots between the education, theory, and practice? Two of us — myself and Jon Hansen. (But we should note that Pierre and Chris spent part of their careers on solution advisory consulting and implementation guidance, and have deep knowledge about the implementation and integration requirements, which is also very unique and useful in technology selection.)

Now remember the second point: Vendors Have Lured Big Analyst Firms Astray and that you’re not getting a map of the best solutions, but the best solutions from the analyst firm’s pool of vendor sponsors and research subscribers, where the reality is that only the big, established, cash-rich companies can afford the high-priced subscriptions that keep them in front of the overworked analysts who have to spend over half of their time taking inquiries or keeping high paying subscription customers happy. (Whereas analysts at smaller firms or independents get to focus on studying and understanding the solutions, not general inquiries or whether or not the contract [or pricing model] is good.)

This means that these big firm analysts are not spending a lot of time, if any, looking at the up-and-coming mid-sized companies that have not only been around long enough to develop mature enterprise solutions, but solutions that are more modern, more powerful, more usable, and more intelligent (with embedded analytics, RPA, and the right AI for the task at hand), and possibly (much) better for you. Moreover, if the enterprise is a mid-market company, or able to go with a best-of-breed as a bolt-on to their enterprise ProcureTech platform, they’ll never know about the majority of these solutions (as only the overfunded startups will have the money to get the big analyst firm attention, and these vendors often have more financial stability problems than the smaller vendors who are bootstrapping or taking minimal funding and actually have stable, happy, paying customers keeping them afloat).

Third, and most important, it’s not the best rated solution, it’s the best solution for your organization. Not only is it the case that this solution is very likely not on a map of only 20 companies (when there might be 100 companies that offer that solution), but it might also be the case that it is the lowest ranked solution on those maps — especially when these maps tend to rate solutions on a lot of subjective factors that match what the analyst thinks are the most relevant for an average organization, whereas you are a specific organization which has a specific set of relevant factors that you care about, with specific requirements for those factors. The more divergence between your factors and the analysts’, and your scale and theirs, the worse the map is for your needs, and the worse the solution you select will be.

The only maps you should care about are those that rank solutions solely on the tech capabilities and/or the customer rankings. But only so far as potential solution identification, not selection. Maps that concentrate on pure tech (like Spend Matters Solution Map) allow you to identify vendors that have the tech foundations, giving you a starting pool, but don’t allow you to identify vendors that have a solution — because a solution is tech and appropriate process support and integration capability and support and culture and whatever else transforms another piece of potential shelfware into a solution that will be used daily by your employees.

Note that we used the word “potential” for a reason. No map (including Spend Matters) is complete, so you will need to look at multiple sources (like ProcurementSoftware.site and the upcoming Art of Procurement ProcureTech 100) to put together a complete list of vendors to consider. Then you will have to cross reference with real analyst vendor write-ups (which can include the hundreds of write-ups here on this site if one or more of your potential finalists are included) to whittle down that list to the best starting set for your best practice technology RFP (of which we have a lot of advice on how to write that on this site as well).

At the end of the day, it’s about what solution will work for you, not about which solution is on which map!

There Are Best-in-Class Solutions for End-to-End Indirect Sourcing Processes …

… you just have to do your research!

A while ago I posted that your standard sourcing solution doesn’t work for direct (because it doesn’t, and, relatively speaking, very few sourcing solutions do work for direct), and one of the comments I received implied that it doesn’t even work for indirect. And while some of the solutions out there are so minimal / antiquated / poorly designed, it can be considered a fair question (as there are certainly a number of solutions that would never make a recommendation list by the doctor under any circumstance), the reality is that there are lots of solutions that work well for indirect sourcing.

Now, if you are thinking about a best-in-class 7-step sourcing process, then it’s true you might just need on the supplier side:

  • one module for supplier discovery
  • one for extensive supplier qualification from a 360-degree risk, compliance, sustainability, quality, service, etc. perspective
  • one for supplier onboarding and communications
  • one for supplier performance management and development

As well as a sourcing platform that supports:

  • multiple RFX Formats
  • fluid multi-round events
  • strategic sourcing decision optimization so you understand baselines, the cost of business rules, etc.

And possibly a separate best-in-class analytics solution that:

  • lets you dig deep into costs, trends, and outliers

And then an “orchestration” platform that

  • helps you integrate them all so that all data is available in all platforms all of the time

So while you could need as many modules as steps, they exist, and you can build a fantastic solution for your organization and process and get great results. Just don’t expect it from an average suite (that won’t be BiC across the board, will only be tailored for large enterprise, and may only be super appropriate for certain industries). The sheer number of companies in this space (see the Mega Map) means that the odds of you not being able to put together a good solution are small (although it also means that the workload of finding those solutions is quite large, as it takes work to weed through 666 solutions, which is a number that is ruining Procurement, as Joël Collin-Demers indicates).

The lack of solutions for indirect is not the problem, the lack of solutions that not only allows, but can be configured, to enforce a good process is!

More specifically, we are talking about mandatory dual-sourcing! Which, sadly, is still not being done in direct, even though JIT supply chains have been out-the-window at least since Eyjafjallajokull (remember that? it should have been the first push to start properly dual sourcing), with the situation getting progressively worst (on a sometimes daily basis) since March, 2020. (Five years of natural and man-made disasters should be more than enough of a wake-up call, right?)

This is not something indirect has normally done because the view has been “it’s a standard finished off-the-shelf product, I’ll just get it from someone else if I need to“, not recognizing that, for some products, 90% still ultimately come from a single destination country (which is often China) and any disruption to that country (pandemics [as China’s, often impossible, zero tolerance policy will close entire cities for months without any regard to the consequences to the rest of the world], border closings on key land routes, port strikes, and now extremely high [never seen before] tariffs) will jeopardize almost all supply. And for other products, they have chosen a smaller supplier with limited scalability and no nearby options (and resourcing will take time as it will also involve rerouting and ripple effects through the supply chain — and this could also add to cost).

At the end of the day, the platform has to allow you to understand, track, and address your biggest risks, or, as we wrote sixteen (16) years ago (and stand by it to this day), your platform will be your biggest risk because it’s the unexpected that you don’t plan for that kills you, not the expected, no matter how severe.

And while this is not a risk-centric post (as we have written series on that), the largest cause of risk is not natural disasters (even though we are now seeing dozens of major disasters every year, the reality is that most are still localized) or pandemics (while epidemics are increasing, true pandemics still work out to only be a twice-a-century event [although if we don’t step up our global management thereof, the rate will double]), but human generated risks. Stupid humans create more risk and chaos than the planet does!

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.

Moving Forward to Supply Chain Aware Direct Sourcing Is Not an Easy Task

As Bob and I point out in our joint series on Supply Chain Matters on why legacy sourcing and (supply chain) planning solutions can’t handle today’s supply chain challenges (and why direct sourcing needs to be supply chain aware), moving forward is not an easy task and consists of three main parts:

  • persuasion
  • platform
  • process

and each of these parts presents its own set of unique challenges.

The Persuasion

The technical challenges that will need to be solved will be difficult, but likely won’t be anything that talented engineers can’t solve if they put their minds to it (and avoid the distraction of shiny new technology and the buzzword filled marketing that surrounds it).

But, as we keep saying, it can never be “technology” first.

Moreover, the people challenge — convincing the source-to-supply-to-service professionals, stakeholders, and sponsors to buy in is the harder challenge. Moreover, unless you succeed in this challenge, you won’t make any progress at all.

There’s quite a few reasons for this, as well as requirements for success, and we strongly recommend you dive deep into Part 6 of our series for a discussion.

The Platform

There are a number of considerations with regards to getting the “platform” right, and great engineers will be able to do it, if they realize all that they need to do.

Let’s give them a few tips by starting at the foundations.

They will need to address, and resolve, the:

  • data fabric
  • federation
  • integration
  • orchestration
  • alignment
  • the multi-platform metaprise requirements
  • purpose

There’s a lot to unpack here. For a start, we strongly recommend you dive deep into Part 6 of our series for a discussion.

The Process

The process needs to be much more involved than traditional software / SaaS / app selection. It is not just sending out an RFP to a vendor, evaluating the responses, picking one, and then having them and/or your favourite implementation partner implement it.

That’s because you need to do proper Design Engineering and define an ecosystem solution that fits your end-to-end processes, which not only differs between manufacturing and distribution centric organizations, but also across industries (which are subject to different regulatory constraints and operate differently) and even geographies (for enterprises that are regional vs. global).

We offer a few more tidbits on this requirement in Part 6 of our series, but this may just be the process of a future series as we have written multiple series on the past on enterprise technology selection alone, and this goes beyond that as you can’t assume all the vendors did appropriate Design Engineering that considered anything beyond the platform they were selling, if they even considered Design Engineering when they designed their platform.

The short story here is that moving forward is more than just a decision to “make it so”, but a complex endeavour that will take time, money, and top talent. But it is necessary to survive the future of anti-globalization when supply chains are fundamentally global and insanely complex to the point where they cannot be unravelled in some industries in anything short of a decade!