This is a reprise of a series that first ran in 2012. It’s as relevant, and important, today as it was then.

Despite claims to the contrary, you are not stuck being a sap or hearing prophecies from an ethylene-gas inhaling delphi. You do have options. Acquisitions might have some analysts in a tizzy, but you only need to remember one thing. Don’t Panic.

It’s been years since the acquisitions of Ariba & Emptoris.

They were not the only best-of-breed game in town then, and they certainly aren’t the only best-of-breed game in town now. In fact, for many companies, SI would argue that they are not even in the best-of-breed category as the length integration cycles required to integrate them into their acquirer’s platforms slowed down development and now there are only a few module or functions left that, in SI’s opinion, are still best-of-breed. However, there are lots of other options, and these options exist on both sides of the Atlantic.

Best of Breed vendors eat, sleep, and drink supply management

Unlike do-it-all or ERP vendors, best-of-breed supply management vendors are focused entirely on a critical supply management process and, as a result, they tend to be much better at it than do-it-all or ERP vendors, especially supplier enablement, which we all know fuels the e-procurement benefits engine.

Best of Breed on an ERP backbone can offer significant advantages

• Best of Breed providers often know the strengths and weaknesses of ERP systems they are replacing better than the consulting implementation partners, who care more about if they can weasel their way into long-term strategy consulting than a successful implementation. (For example, there are a couple of vendors with over 100 customer SAP implementations, who know the system way better than a Big 5 consultant on his second implementation.)
• Best of Breed providers have enabled hundred of thousand of suppliers, maybe more, over the years … in all regions of the world … your 347 suppliers aren’t going to make them flinch (and they will be faster and cost less, because once again, they, or their carefully selected integration partners, have been there, done that … a few hundred thousand times.)
• Best of Breed provider’s customers are all former ERP e-procurement / consulting implementation customers … that’s right, most of whom have already failed using the ERP/consultant approach, spent the millions, got 7 punch-outs and 11 catalogs implemented … now they spend thousands and get … well, you already know … actual results and benefits.
• Best of Breed providers have to be better than the ERP or broad portfolio providers, because they can’t fall back on their CRM sales or app server license revenue if they don’t deliver.
• And because of all of this, Best of Breed providers have way more references than the ERP providers. Those big ERP guys based in Germany have two significant e-procurement references … one they’ve been using for 3 years, and another from a company I never heard of on this side of the Atlantic … I know of one Best of Breed provider who has 19 published case studies, and has only lost one customer in 14 years, and that was after this company was a customer for 9 years, and decided to outsource IT, and the outsourcer, IBM, brought in an ERP to replace all of the internal systems.
• Best of Breed providers’ SaaS-type offerings and supplier networks eliminate the need for your IT department or external consultants to be involved, so they implement faster and less expensively
• The most successful Best of Breed providers have service organizations or carefully selected service partners around the globe to assist with implementations and provide stability.
• Best of Breed providers fill in the gaps where ERP fall short. ERP may try, but it is not all-in-one and they are usually a year or more behind the Best-of-Breeds functionality-wise.
• Best of Breed works and they have the client stories to prove it. Follow SI’s advice and check their references.
• Best of Breed will help your SUM (Spend Under Management) soar.

Consider your options carefully. A Best of Breed solution on your ERP backbone might be the best decision you can make.

This is a reprise of a series that first ran in 2012. It’s as relevant, and important, today as it was then.

In the first three parts (I, II, and III) of this series we discussed the proper RFX process to follow when attempting to select a technology(-based) solution provider (for e-Procurement, e-Sourcing, and Supply Management solutions in particular) as a true multi-national. We noted that while most companies more-or-less understand the high level process, most get the implementation wrong, focussing too heavy on feature-function checklists (that are usually put together by vendors, even if they are obtained from third parties) and too little on a vendor’s global implementation and support capabilities.

If your organization follows the advice presented, starts with the customer references, and only spends time and energy conducting a detailed review of those vendors with a track record that suggests that the vendor could meet your global implementation and support needs, then your organization is off to a great start. But this isn’t the only best practice that your organization should be following in the selection of a vendor for your global technology needs. In this post we’ll cover five more.

The Core Solution Litmus Test

Once the vendor has passed the customer litmus test, the next litmus test is the core solution requirement litmus test. After dividing all of the stakeholder problems into must solves, should solves, and nice-to-solves, make sure that the vendor has solutions (technology, services, or a combination thereof) that address each of the must-solve problems and most of the nice-to-solve problems. The vendor is not right for you unless it is a global, cultural fit that brings the right solutions. (There’s no checking of feature/function boxes at this step.)

Third-Party Claim Verification

Most vendors will make big claims in terms of their platform capabilities. Just like a vendor’s ability to serve your organization globally should be challenged and verified with customer references, so should its ability to fill your technology gaps. Not only should you talk to their partners, but talk to analysts, bloggers, and other third-parties they have interacted with and whom have seen (part of) their solution.

Open Book Negotiations

In addition to third-party claim verification, don’t be afraid to force a vendor to prove every claim, statement, and assumption. This should not stop at current, successful, customer references. The vendor should let you speak to analysts it has relationships with, consultants who have implemented their solutions, auditors to verify their financial stability, and even ex-customers if asked.

End-To-End Total Cost of Ownership Elucidation

What is the true cost of the solution to your organization AND your supply chain? This goes beyond the end-to-end platform cost, as discussed in this classic post on Cost Model Calculations in SI’s Enterprise Software Buying Guide series, but also includes any costs that will be borne by your supply base. It’s often the case with e-Sourcing/e-Procurement/Supply Management solutions with Supplier Information Management, Supplier Portal, or Supplier Network functionality that a vendor will charge your suppliers an access fee, which can sometimes be hefty. An access fee that is just going to hit your organization with interest in a year when your suppliers raise their prices to cover the fees you caused them to incur. In Procurement, a penny saved today at your supplier’s expense often translates into a dime spent tomorrow. (And if you don’t believe me, then you need to work on understanding the cost of capital throughout your supply chain. Remember that sound, conventional financial management is NOT good for supply chains.)

Open Finals^*

Typically, the final negotiations in this space are more secret than what goes on beyond closed doors at Area 51, scientology headquarters, and the back room of the club where Wall Street mega deals really happen. This is dumb. Blind auctions may be okay when buying commodities, but it’s the last thing an organization should do when buying a critical piece of functionality where a failed implementation will cost (tens of) millions of dollars or more in overspend and opportunity costs. Not only should each vendor be aware of whom it is up against, but vendors should be asked to promote their strengths and counter their opponents weaknesses. They should be instructed to tell the truth, even when asked tough questions (about customer retention and defection to a competitor), and penalized for false answers. Remember, good vendors are honest, especially about the occasional (big) mistake that they made, learned from, and put measures in place to prevent ever repeating it. And the best vendors will get up and walk away as soon as they realize they are not the solution for you (because they thought you needed primarily e-Sourcing functionality and they are mainly e-Procurement for example) and that it would take to long or cost to much to tailor it to your needs. (And these are the first vendors you should go back to as soon as you have needs that they can fulfill.)

If your organization implements the best practices covered in this series, then chances are, it will have no choice but to prepare for success!

^* Nothing to do with tennis, folks!

This is a reprise of a series that first ran in 2012. It’s as relevant, and important, today as it was then.

In this post we continue our series on best-practice vendor selection for your enterprise e-Procurement, e-Sourcing and Supply Management solution. As per Part I, this series specifically relates to the selection of technology(-based) vendors for your enterprise software needs, and e-Procurement, e-Sourcing, and Supply Management solutions in particular (as reiterated in Part II).

What is the ultimate goal of your organization’s technology acquisition project? To get an e-Procurement/e-Sourcing/S2C/P2P/S2S/S2P/SRM/3PM system? No. To increase efficiency / save money / get more spend under management? No. To get satisfaction? No.

The ultimate goal is your organization’s success. That’s the only metric you care about when initiating the technology acquisition project (TAP) dance. And if your organization is a global multi-national, then your organization’s success depends on the vendor’s ability to deliver globally. Not how many boxes the vendor can check on some random feature / function check list. Because, as we discussed in our last post, where large-scale roll-outs are concerned, there are only a few standalone best-of-breed sourcing and procurement technology vendors that will make the shortlist for a given organization.

One thing that your organization needs to be aware of is that this is not 2005, this is 2015 and not only are e-Sourcing, e-Procurement, SRM, and 3PM functionality becoming more-or-less commoditized among the established vendors, but any decent-sized vendor will be able to check-the-box against any publicly available check-lit. Sure, some will have features G, H, and I while others have features J, K, and L, but they all have critical features A through F. And as for features G through L, if they are valuable, the other vendors will catch-up, and the time it will take them is usually less than six months nowadays, and if a feature is made a contingency of a deal, the catch-up time is probably shorter still!

Another thing your organization needs to be aware of is that starting with a short-list of vendors that it is fairly certain can meet its needs will not only significantly reduce the length of the evaluation process (as it is no longer a question of “can the vendor meet my needs” but a question of “is this the best vendor to meet my needs”), but also significantly reduce the organization’s risk. If the organization needs to operate in forty countries and twenty languages, and doesn’t do it’s homework, it could end up wasting six months evaluating three vendors who don’t have a reference outside of the US and UK and who don’t support customers in a language other than English. If it has a deadline of nine months, what does it do? Either it takes the last vendor in the pipeline, if any are left, or rushes out to find another one, with no time to consider how appropriate the vendor it is for its needs or its organizational culture.

Which is another point that is often missed in the traditional implementation of an RFX cycle. Cultural considerations are typically ignored in technology selection, ignoring the fact that people have to use these systems — people who work, think, act, and like to conduct business in a certain way (and like to interact in a certain way with technology and technology / service providers). As a result, good technology selection is not just a matter of check-the-box when a strong vendor interaction is required. If two or more vendors are more-or-less equal from a functional/process selection, the tie-breaker should be cultural alignment. Does the vendor have the same goals? Work to the same metrics? Conduct itself in a similar manner? Give your customers and suppliers the same respect? Have a system with a workflow that can be tuned to organizational processes (and not force the organization to shoe-horn into processes and workflows that don’t support it’s efficient, best-practice, workflows)? These are important, but often overlooked, questions. Don’t forget them.

In our next post we will dive into more best-practices to truly take your technology acquisition project to the next level now that your RFX process is back on the rails.