Category Archives: Technology

Who Needs The Beef?

For those of you who have been following my rants, especially on intake-to-orchestrate (which really is clueless for the popular kids as it doesn’t do anything unless you already have all the systems you need and don’t know how to connect them), you’ll know that one of my big qualms, to this day, is Where’s the Beef?, because while the intake and orchestrate buns are nice and fluffy and likely very tasty, they aren’t filling. If you want a full stomach, you need the beef (or at least a decent helping of Tofu, which, unless you are vegetarian, won’t taste as good or be quite as filling, but will give you the subsistence you need).

And you need filling. Specifically, you need the part of the application that does something — that takes the input data (possibly properly transformed), applies the complex algorithms, and produces the output you need for a transaction or to make a strategic decision. That’s not intake-to-orchestrate, that’s not a fancy UI/UX, that’s not an agent that can perform transactional tasks that fall within scope, and that’s NOT a fancy bun. It’s the beef.

But, apparently, at least as far as THE PROPHET is concerned, (bio) re-engineering is going to eliminate the need for the beef. Apparently, the buns are going to have all the nutrients (or data processing abilities) you need to function and do your job.

In THE PROPHET‘s latest analogy, today’s enterprise technology burger consists of:

  • the patty: (not to be mistaken for the paddy) which combines enterprise technology and labour (which means it really should be the patty [labour] and the trimmings [technology] in this analogy)
  • the upper bun: and
  • the lower bun: which collectively provide you a way to cleanly get a grip on the patty

But tomorrow’s enterprise technology burger will consist of:

  • the upper bun: which will be replaced by a new type of technology that fuses co-pilots and agentic systems to power autonomous agents and replaces the patty [labour] and part of trimmings
  • the lower bun: which will represent the next generation data store and information supply chain and build in “self-healing” technology for data maintenance and replace the other part of the trimmings

… and that’s it. NO BEEF! Just two co-dependent buns that are destined to fuse into a roll … and not a very tasty one at that. Because this roll will, apparently, operate fully autonomously and never get anywhere near you, leaving you perpetually hungry.

Now, apparently, not all parts of the patty (with its complex amino acid chains and protein structures) will be capable of being (bio) re-engineered into the buns right away and the patty won’t disappear all at once, just shrink bit by bit over the next decade until there’s nothing left and the last protein structure is absorbed (or replaced by a good enough AI-generated facsimile — they can do that now too). In THE PROPHET‘s view, legacy systems of record (ERP/MRP, payment platforms, etc.) will be the last to be replaced, and those will survive along with the legacy labour to maintain them until they can finally be split up into components and absorbed into the bun.

In other words, in THE PROPHET‘s view, you don’t need the patty, and, more specifically, you don’t need (or even want) the beef. I have to argue this is NOT the case.

1. You Need the Beef

Thinking that the patty can be completely absorbed into the buns is what results from a lack of understanding of enterprise software architecture best practices and software development in general.

The best architecture we have, which took years to get two, is MVC, which stands for

  • Model: specifically, data model, which should be at the bottom (and could be absorbed into a data bun)
  • View: specifically, the UI/UX we interact with (and could be absorbed into a soft, warm, sweet smelling sourdough bun)
  • Controller: the core algorithms and data processing, which needs to be its own layer that supports the UX (and allows the UX to reconfigure the processing steps and outputs as needed) and can be cross-adapted to the best available data sources (that need to be remain independent)

Moreover, even Bill Gates, who predicts AI will have devastating effects across all industries, realizes that you can’t replace coders, energy experts, and biologists, and, by extension, jobs that require constantly evolving code, organic structure, and energy requirements to complete. So you will still need labour that creates, and relies on, highly specialized algorithms and expert interpretations of outputs to do their jobs. That also means that, in our field, strategic sourcing and procurement professionals cannot be replaced but tactical AP clerks are on their way out as AP software automatically processes 99% to 99.9% of invoices with no human involvement, even those with missing data and errors, handling the return, correction, negotiation, etc. until all of the data matches and costs are within tolerance.

2. You Want the Beef!

The whole point of modern architectures and engineering is to minimize legacy code / technical debt and maximize tactical data processing and system throughput (and have the system do as much thunking as possible, which is what it’s good at). If you try to push too much into the lower bun, you don’t have separation of data and processing, which means it’s almost impossible to validate the data as it’s not data you’re getting, but processed data, which means that the system might be continually pushing wrong data to the outer bun, even with good data fed in, due to a bug deep in the transformation and normalization code. But your automatic checks and fail safes would never catch it because you’ve turned what should be a crystal (clear) box into a black box! If you try to push too much processing into the upper bun, you have to replicate common functionality across every agent and application, leading to a lot of replication and bloat that consumes too much space, uses too much energy, and makes the systems even harder to maintain than the legacy applications of today.

So while the burger of tomorrow might be different with a much leaner, more protein rich, patty (with less sauce and unhealthy trimmings), and the bread might be a super healthy natural yeast-free multi-grain flat bread, making for a smaller (and possibly less appetizing burger from a surface view), it still needs to be a burger and anyone who thinks otherwise has joined the pretty fly Gen-AI in hallucination land!

You Say You Want Success, But Do You?

This post is inspired by THE REVELATOR‘s inquiry where he asked Do You Really Want a Successful ProcureTech Initiative?

For the vast majority of you, the answer is a clear and resounding “YES” (with the possible exception of those of you who have been treated badly by your employer and want to use your last official act to stick them with an application that will make them as miserable as you are, but as far as I can tell, you are a very small minority — you didn’t get into Procurement expecting it to be easy, or to be a way to make friends).

However, you are only one cog in the ecosystem. Let’s look at the other cogs:

Vendor: as long as you keep renewing the SaaS subscription, the C-Suite at the vendor doesn’t care if they sold you a Ferrari (at a Ferrari price tag) but delivered a 2004 Mazda RX-8 …

Analyst Firm: as long as the big research subscriptions keep rolling in from the big vendors (who always feature at the top / upper right / frontal wave of their maps), the analyst firm doesn’t care if you succeed or not, and will not only happily push the hype the vendors want pushed, but happily blame you for not doing your research and not selecting the appropriate technology when you and your counterparts take their advice en-masse and then contribute to the all-time high project failure rates of 88% (two and a half decades of project failure)

Implementor: not really, because if you don’t swap out the solution at renewal time, where is their future revenue going to come from???

Big X who pushed the platform: Hell No! … they need to sell you projects to find bolt ons, do custom additions, and tweak the process for years as they need to keep their bench empty! (And some of these shops have over 100K junior consultants they have to keep busy. Moreover, they don’t make money training them on AI, they make money deploying them as your external support force. (Remember, many of these shops are effectively the new Manpower, except they have to pay their consultants on the bench, whereas job placement agencies just had to place people to keep their government grants or get their placement fee!)

And since YOU don’t take the time to do your research and figure this out (including the fact that the Big X pushed the worst fit solution from their stable on you to keep their Gold/Platinum/Sycophant status with the solution provider), that’s why YOU keep failing. Even if the salesperson honestly wanted to sell you a win (and many don’t, and the doctor can say that confidently with over 25 years in Enterprise Software and he’s sure THE REVELATOR has some stories to tell here), that’s far from a guarantee that a win will happen.

If you truly want success, YOU have to define your processes, define your problem, find the right vendor, make the vendor contractually responsible for implementation success (whether they do it or use a third party) with delayed payment (where you don’t pay for a module until it is working and passes predefined tests) and early termination clauses, identify the gaps, identify the right niche consultancy (who doesn’t have a stadium of junior consultants) to help you identify add ons and processes to fill them, and define early out clauses in case of non-delivery! You have to do all the work the vendors, analysts, and consultants claim they do for you … because they don’t (or at least don’t do it in your best interest). And while the good ones (which may take you a while to find) will help you, YOU still have to take the lead!

And the doctor knows you don’t always have the time to do it all, which is why he keeps pushing Project Assurance where you hire a niche specialist to help you, one who is not a part of the big COGs that need never-ending projects from you to stay solvent, and only cares about helping you get everything in order for success. (After all, there are so few of these experts it is literally a case of too many companies, too little time. These people or small niche consultancies don’t have to worry about running out of work, and by the time they made it through all the current companies they could handle, it would be time for their initial clients to upgrade to next generation systems anyway — and the only way they’d be available for a future project is to ensure client success with every client they take on.)

As we indicated, in our last two rants, you can no longer afford to be led by the Clueless vendors. It’s time you take your Procurement destiny into your own hands. It’s time for the Revenge of the Nerds!

Tech Won’t Solve Your Procurement Problems!

Probably not something you’d expect from a blog that was initially founded to educate you on best practices and best tech in Procurement and or from the doctor who has publicly reviewed close to 400 companies on Sourcing Innovation (and Spend Matters between ’16 and ’22), but it is something that needs to be said, and yelled loudly, now that everyone (analysts, influencers, marketers, etc.) is telling you this next generation of Gen-AI, Agentric, or AI-driven tech they are building will solve all your problems.

Because it won’t. In fact, it probably won’t solve any!

That’s because Procurement is NOT like other business functions. And while all business units are different, Procurement is different in a unique way. It has to constantly solve problems the business has not experienced yet. Sales just has to sell the next N customers in the target customer base which will be rather similar to the last N. Marketing is messaging this potential base which is not changing their business overnight, or even year to year, isn’t rapidly advancing in their market understanding, and won’t recognize more than a subtle shift in the message. Moreover, you don’t have new mediums popping up everyday. There’s print, radio, TV, skywriting, and web/social media. (We haven’t invented gamma radiation-based dream advertising yet!) Finance isn’t changing the rules of accounting, and even minor changes, like GAAP, only change every couple of decades.

Not so in Procurement. It’s not just acquiring supply at the lowest cost, it’s sustaining supply at a cost that allows the organization to remain profitable, which is not simply repeating the last order to the current supplier when stock gets low. That’s because Procurement not only has to constantly deal with supplier capacities, raw material shortages, carrier capacities, occasional port strikes, occasional carrier and supplier failures, but unexpected natural disasters that wipe out entire yields of renewable raw materials, arbitrary sanctions and border closings making suppliers and routes unavailable, and completely unexpected trade wars sparking tariffs that can completely upset all the cost models you ever developed.

That means that every model you have built and every solution you have customized instantly becomes irrelevant. And you can’t use AI to tell you what to do because AI can only tell you what it has been trained to do, and it can only be trained on existing data which would be based on historical situations.

That means that tech cannot solve your Procurement problems.

That means that the only option you have, as Sourcing Innovation has been saying for months, is Human Intelligence (HI!). That means that only educated, experienced, skilled, and smart people can solve Procurement Problems.

This isn’t to say that you shouldn’t use tech. You most definitely should! Because most of what you do is tactical data processing that is well defined, for which there are configurable solutions that will allow the software to do the majority of it for you, and “AI” solutions that can be trained to learn from the exceptions you manually deal with to handle them automatically the next time.

But when it comes to strategic decisions, there is no Agentric AI that can solve a problem, especially one it, and you, haven’t seen before. You have to do that. If you’re smart, you’ll acquire all of the best knowledge summarization and analytic solutions that you can get your hands on because they’ll automatically acquire, process, summarize, and graphically display all of the information available, which will help you make the right decision efficiently and effectively, so that you can react fast in a crisis with confidence, but it will still be you, the human, who has to make the (right) decision!

As an IBM slide deck stated in 1979:

A computer can never be held accountable, therefore a computer must never make a management decision.

Just because it can do a billion calculations a second and thunk better than you, that doesn’t mean it can think, because it can’t (and when Gen-AI claims to display a “chain of thought” it is lying, it is a “chain of compute”, which is not thinking, just identifying patterns that typically follow other patterns in sequences it was “trained” on). Only you can. (Remember, if machines ever become intelligent, our best case scenario is they need us for bioelectric energy and create the matrix where we believe we are living a life free of machines. Otherwise, we’re probably looking at a SkyNet situation. It’s only logical for many, many reasons.)

Yes, Gen AI will Have to be Consumed By …

Orchestration along with Intake if any of these loud, overfunded, mostly useless (but, unfortunately, not mostly harmless) startups are going to survive!

Yes, the doctor said it and yes, it’s totally true.

So why this diversion? the doctor was recently asked a variation of the question by a very knowledgeable, observant, and forward thinking executive with a track record of getting it right (and growing companies) who wanted to know if he was grasping the situation accurately and likely correct about how this whole mess is going to shake out once the mass extinction begins later this year/early next year (where the doctor is predicting at least twice the typical percentage of failures, rivalling or exceeding that of the first mass extinction post the funding frenzy and market crash of 2008, as well as a large number of mergers that will happen just so companies can partially survive; and where THE REVELATOR is predicting less than one fourth of companies will make it through unscathed, because the space cannot support 666+ companies).

As the doctor has previously penned in Marketplace Madness is Coming Because History WILL Repeat Itself:

Stand-alone Intake(-to)/Orchestrate solutions, the current poster children of the space, will soon have a fall from grace (and only the smart will survive)! Call me Scrooge if you like, but there’s a logic behind why I’m developing a bah-humbug attitude towards most of these. And it goes something like this.

Intake

  • Pay For View: if modern procurement solutions are completely SaaS, then they should be accessible by anyone with a web browser, so why should you have to buy a third party solution to see the data in those applications? Wouldn’t it make more sense to just switch to modern source to pay solutions that allow you to give variable levels of access to everyone who needs access instead of paying for two solutions AND an integrator?

Orchestrate

  • Solution Sprawl: while orchestration is supposed to help with solution sprawl, it’s yet another solution and only adds to it. Wouldn’t it make more sense to invest in and switch to a core sourcing and/or procurement platform with a fully open API where all of the other modules you need can pull the necessary data from and push the necessary data to that platform?

I2O (Intake-to-Orchestrate)

  • Where’s the Beef?: Talk to an old Pro who was doing Procurement back before the first modern tools began to be introduced in the late 90’s and they’ll tell you that they don’t get this modern focus on “orchestration” and managing “expenses” and low-value buys because, when they were doing Procurement, it was about identifying and strategically managing multi-million (10, 50, 100+) categories where even 2% made a significant improvement to the bottom line, and way more than 10% on a < 100K category.
  • Where’s the Market? This is only a problem in large enterprises — right now, many of these I2O solutions are going after the mid-market who are eating it up because of ease of use, but as soon as they realize the emperor has no clothes, and there’s no support for real strategic procurement (yet alone strategic sourcing) and you have to go out and buy more platforms, what’s going to happen? The reality is that the mid-market is better served by a federated catalog management / punch-out platform, or next-gen marketplace (they’re coming, tech is cyclical like fashion, and it’s due) and will likely be better served still by a new breed of e-commerce B2B solutions for end-user Procurement.

Moreover, as the doctor has penned in many posts, Gen-AI is only useful for tasks that ultimately reduce to

  • large document/corpus summarization
  • large document/corpus query
  • language translation (including natural to system and system to natural)

That’s why the doctor listed so few valid uses in More Valid Uses for Gen-AI … this time IN Procurement!, and why most of those were utterly useless such as:

  • Create meaningless RFPs from random “spec sheets”.
  • Auto-fill your RFPs with vendor-ish data.
  • Generate Kindergarten level summaries of standard reports for the C-Suite.

In other words, on its own, each technology is mostly useless. (But not mostly harmless. On its own, consistently misused, Gen-AI is very harmful. See our other articles for a discussion of that.)

  • Intake is useless on its own because capturing an input is worthless if you can’t do anything with it
  • Orchestration is useless on its own because it’s yet another piece of SaaS you need to maintain that provides no value beyond linking two or more pieces of software together that could both be linked direct through their APIs (since it couldn’t link the software in the first place if it didn’t have APIs)
  • Gen-AI is mostly uses on its own as most of its valid uses are in CLM or RFP query (not creation!), which is only a small part of the S2P cycle

However, if you put it all together, and do it right, the whole may be more than the sum of its parts.

If it’s all expertly glued together:

  • Gen-AI creates a natural language interface where a user can make any type of request, not just a purchase request, that is translated to a standardized system format
  • Intake can process those formats, ensure completeness (relative to the needs of the different enterprise applications and modules that are integrated), send complete requests to the orchestration module, get back the responses, and feed them through the Gen-AI interface to translate them to natural language before being fed back to the user
  • Orchestration links all the applications in a way that directs the request to the right application, or application chain, ensures it gets properly processed and executed and ensures the right results get returned to the right applications in the chain and, ultimately, the user … providing, of course, it’s enterprise wide back-office orchestration, NOT just Procurement!

Which means that the only way any of these players are going to survive is if orchestration gobbles it all up AND does it right.

What is Spend Orchestration?

Spend Orchestration is all the rage. But what exactly is it?

Well, as we tried to point out in Demystifying the Marketing Madness for you, where we said it meant we don’t do anything different than all the other orchestration providers, but it sure sounds cool!, Spend Orchestration is essentially:

Clueless for the popular kids.

It’s a coming-of-age comedy where you have a slick looking, popular, over-funded new-age SaaS platform from fresh-out-of-college (dropouts) who want to do “good deeds” for the Procurement space by giving your Procurement department a “makeover” that connects all of your applications together so you can “manage your spend” and match stakeholders with the procurement professionals that can meet their needs (as the platforms try to justify their existence).

Upon implementation of the spend orchestration, there will be one fiasco, hardship, and falling out after another as you realize the platform doesn’t do anything if you don’t have core Procurement platforms for sourcing, supplier management, analytics, contract management, procurement, and invoice management/accounts payable … otherwise, it’s just intake to nowhere and orchestrating faster push and pull from your incomplete, outdated ERP/MRP. Also, without good platforms in place, it will just make it easier for the stakeholders to admonish you on a daily basis when your Procurement process doesn’t actually pick up the pace or perform more preferably. And you will be more jealous of your peers that skipped the orchestration platform and went straight for the S2P or P2P platform that actually solves some of your Procurement problems.

Now, eventually you will acquire the missing pieces (or these orchestration platforms will build basic functionality) and you will kiss and make up at a big fat Procurement Wedding like ISM or DPW, where they invite you on an all expenses paid trip to participate in their prestigious Power Procurement panel, but it will be a very rocky road on the way.

Our suggestion is that if a company comes knocking with “spend orchestration“, you tell them thanks and no thanks and save the comedy hijinks for the big screen. If you do need orchestration — which you won’t know for sure until after you’ve consolidated your applications, determined which are not easy to direct connect (due to a lack of [Open] APIs), which don’t allow easy access across the organization, and where orchestration might actually help — you want to get that orchestration from a company that has grown up, not one just starting it’s teenage high-school journey!