Talent is About to Become MORE SCARCE!

I thought already made this rant in my myth busting of 2025, sorry, 2015 procurement trends, Part 3, but after reading THE PROPHET‘S grand vision based on what can only be a fanatical belief that “AI” systems will magically become intelligent at some point in the near future, despite the fact that the majority of these systems are based on the dumbest technology ever created and cannot possibly become intelligent as they can’t even reason, it seems I have to make it again. The point is, as long as anyone believes that technology will solve the talent problem, we have a problem. And if someone thinks it will make the situation better when it’s only going to make the situation so much worse … ESPECIALLY IN PROCUREMENT, we have to start shouting from the rooftops!

First of all, he quoted an “All-In” Podcast — which apparently is a favourite among the AI zealots because it claimed that “the speed with which we are about to automate jobs through AI will result in a return to socialistic government policies because so many will be out of work — as his backing, even though, just like automated transaction classification and analysis (when “AI” was first introduced into our space in the early 2000s) didn’t eliminate analysts, commodity buyers, and AP clerks, this iteration of the technology won’t eliminate those jobs either! It will make them more productive, to the point that one AP clerk, accountant, data analyst, report writer, or any other person who spends 90% of their time doing repetitive tasks that are capable of being 90% automated can do the work of 10 of these individuals. So yes, if a department is oversized, some people who only, and can only, do these repetitive tasks will be put out of work, but not all of them. First of all, many of these systems can only do these well defined tasks when they can be performed the same way every single time with little to no variance. Humans will always need to process the exceptions. This is especially true when an error could result in massive loss (approving a request from an impersonating entity to change the bank account correlated with a supplier to one that belongs to the fraudster, executing a contract for a desperately needed good or material at an unaffordable price, hiring the wrong person due to algorithmic bias and getting hit with a massive lawsuit, etc. — and yes, these AI systems are MASSIVELY biased based on the data sets they are trained on. Why? They are not based on pure automated-reasoning systems based on pure, unbiased, logic. They are based on probabilistic correlations in input data, all of which is, sadly, at least mildly biased to the views of the writer who wrote the materials.)

More importantly, since AI actually sands for “Artificial Idiocy”, especially in the case of Gen-AI which can’t even do basic reasoning (but fools many of you because this new generation of neural network technology can process and train on an order of magnitude more data than previous generations of deep neural network technology and build responses from partial responses that are highly correlated to partial inputs compared to previous generations that could only return fully canned responses to full inputs), it can’t be counted on to make strategic decisions, and shouldn’t most important decisions in business be made strategically???

The reality is that all jobs in a modern business (and especially white-collar jobs) should be centered on strategic decision making and collaboration vs. tactical data processing. Even the most simple job. Take the lowly AP clerk. That’s seen as tactical invoice processing and a role that should be 100% automated. Neither should be true. First of all, no machine can catch all potential issues, or fix all the issues it detects. There will always be exceptions that humans will have to address, with real Human Intelligence (HI!). Secondly, while these clerks should be following rules, they should also be analyzing the rules, especially around payment terms, payment options, investment opportunities vs. early payments, etc. Cash is royalty in most organizations, and organizations need to manage their cash strategically on a daily basis, not just in quarterly or annual planning. Expenses are not static over time, revenue is not 100% reliable, interest rates change regularly, tariffs can come and go on the whim of a single demented individual in most countries, and regular analysis of payment terms, early payment (discount) offerings, investments, and cashflow needs to be done. Moreover, while we wholeheartedly agree that a clerk should not make the decision, you can’t expect the head accountant to have the time to do, and review, all the analysis that should be done while also being responsible for all financial planning and all financial reporting, but if her staff does all of this and brings their analysis to her on a weekly basis, the right decisions can be made at the right time and the organization can evolve with the market. The last thing an organization should be doing is paying suppliers Net 15 when only Net 30 or Net 45 is required and it’s the time of year when revenue is less than expenses, or paying suppliers Net 45 or Net 60 when the organization is cash rich and suppliers are struggling (and forced to take loans, which increases their overall costs, and the overall costs they pass along to the organization).

In other words, we should only see massive layoffs of people who have no strategic skills and shouldn’t be in white collar jobs to begin with. (And maybe this is the solution to the lack of trades workers who are desperately needed across North America. When they are no longer able to fake their aptitude for a white collar job they aren’t suited for, they’ll have to shift, especially in the USA where socialism gets further and further from the agenda every year. Those Billionaires aren’t pouring Millions into Political Campaigns via SuperPACs because they want socialism!)

So while half of current white-collar jobs may be eliminated, it won’t eliminate the other half of white-collar jobs, even though it will shift where the white collar jobs are and what they are. Even though department sizes may decrease 75% in the new AI Agent-based organization, it will create almost half as many jobs as it eliminates. We’ve been told for 60 years (and yes, you read that right, SIXTY years) that a super generic AI would come along and solve all our woes, and for 60 years it hasn’t happened. (And we are no closer now than we were then, despite claims to the contrary.) However, as technology has progressed, specific technologies focussed on particular applications have become better and better and many individual task workflows can be mostly automated with specific RPA, ML, or “AI” technologies. Each of these specific technologies needs to be individually built/trained, installed, configured, maintained, and improved over time as the process needs to evolve with business and marketplace realities. This requires appropriately trained and experienced people. So, while the jobs in the business back-office will decrease, jobs in specialist “AI” tech shops making specific applications will increase. (And no, the majority of these applications, once created, won’t auto-install, auto-configure, auto-retrain, auto-adapt, etc. etc. etc.)

Even though Google might suggest that we will soon have “Agents” that will “extend the capabilities of language models by leveraging tools to access real-time information, suggest real-world actions, and plan and execute complex tasks autonomously” and the mass layoff will soon happen, it won’t. You see, very smart humans who are expert in both technology AND the task they want to replace a human with are needed to design, build, test, refine, and make these tools real-world ready. Guess what? These smart humans are few and far between (especially since the rate at which we are getting progressively dumber in western societies is accelerating year after year ever since the introduction of social media, and Twitter in particular). Most white collar office worker process experts are not deep techies and most deep techies have very little understanding of how real world tasks are actually done, and you need someone who is deep in BOTH realms to appropriately design and lead the building of such tools. The reality is that there just aren’t enough of those resources, which brings us to why TALENT IS ABOUT TO BECOME SCARCER … ESPECIALLY IN PROCUREMENT.

You see, the same people who are needed to lead the construction of this next generation of systems are the same people with the skills you need to effectively select, implement, integrate, and manage these new systems, and the team who will use them, at a super-human level, which is necessary if you want to reduce your tactical workforce by a factor of 2, 3, 5, or even 10. Moreover, this also the talent that the new niche consultancies need in order to deliver the same value of the big shops at a much more affordable price tag.

So while the “AI Agents”, once deployed, will allow the average tech-adept employees who are responsible for a set of tactical tasks to be way more efficient, they won’t be sufficient to lead the transition and manage the “AI Agent” technology going forward. And they will also be in short supply because these are the same resources that will be needed by the AI Agent builders as testers and, more importantly, the SaaS-backed consultancies delivering projects using this technology. So while one may think this technology will enable everyone to be productive, they really won’t.

In other words, the introduction of “Agent” technologies is just going to accelerate the war for talent, and you’re going to become even more desperate for it as time goes on (given that you haven’t invested in talent in decades). Very, very desperate!

However, at this point we should note that THE PROPHET gets one thing right — if you’re going to invest in a ridiculously expensive college or university education (that rarely teaches true critical thinking anymore, as they have become more focused on maximizing enrolment to maximize dollars and allow class sizes as large as 300, 500 or more as long as they all fit in the auditorium), focus on STEM, and, in particular, on degrees that focus on applied aspects and will allow you to build systems (software, physical, hybrid) or their components (chemistry, material science, etc.). “Agents”, even though they aren’t going to work nearly was well as advertised, are going to either drive jobs upstream to strategic jobs that make extensive use of technology (requiring a strong STEM education in addition to an understanding of what the business function you are in is doing) or downstream to traditional trades (as machines can’t, and won’t, be able to generically build things, serve us, etc. for quite a while; any robotics that does work is orders of magnitude too expensive for the average business, and totally out of reach of the average person).

It’s also why we need to note that THE PROPHET gets another thing right — you need formal apprenticeship programs as you need to start nurturing your own talent, as it will soon be so scarce you probably won’t be able to hire top talent anymore at what you can afford to pay as they will all be earning top salaries at “Agent” development tech shops or “Agent” enhanced services shops.

But sadly, this is the last thing he gets right and his third suggestion telling you to “go online and learn how AI and agents work” is totally off the mark if you want to become more than just a consumer of such technology. To truly understand how this technology works, so you can understand where and when it won’t work (and why), you need a solid understanding of not just the algorithms it is based on, but the underlying mathematics. You need a solid STEM education to truly learn why what you are doing works, or doesn’t. Furthermore, English will never be the language of real coding. COBOL was abandoned for a reason — it was too wordy for real coders, and the reality is that English is too imprecise to ever be a formal programming language!

Myth-busting 2025 2015 Procurement Predictions and Trends! Part 5

Introduction

In our first instalment, we noted that the ambitious started pumping out 2025 prediction and trend articles in late November / early December, wanting to be ahead of the pack, even though there is rarely much value in these articles. First of all, and we say this with 25 years of experience in this space, the more they proclaim things will change … Secondly, the predictions all revolve around the same topics we’ve been talking about for almost two decades. In fact, if you dug up a Procurement predictions article for 2015, there’s a good chance 9 of the top 10 topic areas would be the same. (And see the links in our first article for two “future” series with about 3 dozen trends that are more or less as relevant now as they were then.)

In our last instalment, we continued our review of the 10 core predictions (and variants) that came out of our initial review of 71 “predictions” and “trends” across the first eight articles we found, in an effort to demonstrate that most of these aren’t ground-shattering, new, or, if they actually are, not going to happen because the more they proclaim things will change …

In this instalment, we’re again continuing to work our way up the list from the bottom to the top and continuing with “sustainability”.

Sustainability

There were 10 predictions across the eight articles which basically revolved around “ESG” with some sideline focus on the need for “collaboration” and “balance (against profit)”. This is yet another topic that is overhyped and needs to be addressed, but, as with our last two articles, we will start by listing all of the individual predictions:

  • ESG Metrics will Increase In Importance for Procurement
  • Focus on ESG Factors
  • Increased Focus on Sustainability
  • Increased Focus on Sustainability
  • Struggle to Balance ESG Goals with Profit
  • Supplier Collaboration will become Key for Achieving Sustainable Procurement
  • Sustainability and ESG
  • Sustainability and ESG Compliance
  • Sustainability and Ethical Sourcing
  • Sustainable Procurement Practices

Has there been a year where sustainability hasn’t made the list? SI remembers running a cross-blog series on sustainability 17 years ago back in 2008! And there was just as much hullaballoo then as there is now. Nothing has changed, and as long as the first world doesn’t agree on the importance of sustainability and ESG goals (with Europe taking one stance and the USA about to take another), nothing ever will.

Sustainability is as important as ever, considering that

  • some critical raw materials, such as rare earths, are getting scarcer by the day
  • it’s getting hotter and hotter every year, with 2024 another record year for the books
  • with natural disasters increasing year-over-year, crop destruction and food shortages are becoming more common
  • not being sustainable is about to be costly in Europe, which will levy massive fines to try and prop up their struggling economy
  • being sustainable is about to become costly in the USA as the incoming administration abandons all sustainability regulations, while implementing tariffs that are going to drive up costs more than sustainability ever will
  • the last two will be at odds, so organizations will be pursuing different, localized strategies

However, it is not new, just front-and-center as it is every year. The primary reasons may change year-to-year, but the cycle stays the same. Sustainability remains on the important items list, with the importance ultimately dictated by the regulations in place.

What Should Happen? (But Won’t!)

Organizations should stop looking at sustainability as a cost to be addressed only to the event necessary, but as a strategic business advantage. This is because:

  • sustainable organizations minimize energy use …
    and with energy costs rising every year, investments in energy efficiency will pay multiples in the long run
  • sustainable organizations maximize use of renewables …
    and minimize dependence on materials in limited, dwindling, supply (which only get more expensive every year)
  • sustainable organizations optimize processes to minimize waste …
    which maximizes the value of every dollar spent
  • etc.

Sustainability isn’t just keeping the carbon and GHGs down, its optimizing operations to reduce costs (and carbon) in the long run. But as long as it’s seen as a cost, organizations will never achieve value from sustainability, which only exists in the supply chain.

That’s four down. Six to go.

Just like there was no Æther, there’s no data fabric either!

In a recent LinkedIn posting just before the holidays, THE REVELATOR asked a very important question. A question that may have gone overlooked given that many people are busy trying to get their work done before the holidays so they can get a few days off. And a question that must NOT be forgotten.

1. How does the old technology phrase “garbage-in, garbage-out” apply to Gartner’s Data Fabric post?

Data files. Databases. Data stores. Data warehouses. Data lakes. Data Lakehouses. And now … the data fabric … which is, when all is said and done, just another bullsh!t organizational data scheme designed to distract you from the fact that your data is dirty, that data storage providers don’t know what to do about it, but these data storage providers still need to sell you on something new to maintain their revenue streams.

You see, the great thing about today’s SaaS middleware enabled apps is that they don’t care where the data is, what organizational structure the data is stored in, etc. As long as the data has a descriptor that says “this field, which is in this format, in this db stores X” (where X describes the data) and an access key, the SaaS middleware can suck the data in, convert that data into the format it needs, and work with that data.

However, now that we are in the age of “AI”, the most important thing has become good, clean, data. However, just “weaving” your bad data together doesn’t solve anything. In fact, with today’s technology, it just makes things MANY times worse. We are now at garbage in, hazardous waste out!

Unfortunately there’s nothing we can do if the AI zealots are now adding hallucinogenics to their kool-aid, because it sounds like they are trying to bring back the magical medeival Æther … *groan*

THE REVELATOR then went on to ask …

2. Why does Gartner confuse more than inform and enlighten?

At the end of the day, you have a better chance of appearing as an enlightened Guru to someone who is lost and confused than to someone who is clear headed and confident in one’s direction!

Like the other big analyst firms, they profit off of being the Gurus the executives turn to when they can’t make sense of the hogwash filled marketing madness they are inundated with every day!

More specifically, their sales people need to say: “Our senior analyst has all of the answers … and they can be yours at the low, low introductory price of only 9,999,99 USD a day*.” So they don’t really care about whether or not they are confusing more than enlightening, as long as the sales are coming in. (In fact, they aren’t even looking to see how they are doing as long as the money keeps rolling in …

* one day only, after that, full rate of 29,999.99 a day applies …

But the questions didn’t stop there. The next question was:

3. Why are Data Problems Solved Downstream?

The answer to this is not as easy or straightforward, but when you consider that:

  1. it’s hardwork to solve the problems at the source and
  2. most of these analyst firms are staffed with analysts with little fundamental understanding of technology or the domains they are analyzing the technology for, don’t want to admit it, and are happy to take guidance from the vendors cutting them the biggest cheques and spending the most time “educating” them on the paradigm the vendor wants to see …

What should one expect.

Case in point. Did IDC just happen to come up with a “Worldwide SaaS and Cloud-Enabled Spend Orchestration Map” on its own at the same time a whole bunch of these solutions hit mainstream? (Especially when it takes person years of research and development to design a new map and analyze vendors, at least if you want to try and get it right.) Especially when they don’t have enough senior analyst talent to adequately cover core S2P?

Another case in point. Did Gartner merge it’s P2P into a S2P map because it honestly believes the entire market is heading there (FYI it’s not, look at the Mega Map), or because it doesn’t have enough analyst talent left to attempt to cover the market fragmented?

At the end of the day, it takes many years and many degrees to get a fundamental understanding of modern technology (which all runs on math, by the way) and many more years to get expertise in a business domain … so what can you honestly expect of kids straight out of school who make up significant portions of analyst teams???

Which led to the next question.

4. Can innovation co-exist with exclusivity?

Innovation happens, but then big stalwarts in the space scoop it up to try and remain competitive enough to keep their current customers locked in, a vacuum is created, and the cycle starts anew.

Until Trump dismantles them entirely, the US, like most of the pseudo-free first world, has enough anti-monopoly laws to ensure the cycle continues.

So yes, innovation can coexist with exclusivity, it just takes decades to realize what could happen in less than one decade as a result of having to start over so many times.

Finally, this led to the final question:

5. Does the VC investment model of: for every ten investments, seven fail, two are mediocre, and one “hits pay dirt” have anything to do with the 80%+ technology project failure rate?

It most certainly does! The fact that VCs are happy for seven investments to fail entirely (and then just move the good people to other investments if those people want to keep working) doesn’t help the project failure rate … especially since so many companies don’t survive long enough to master models that will lead to success, instead of failure, 80%+ of the time or to take the time to gauge, plan, and do implementations properly (because, if they don’t sell the next deal within a quarter, the investors will drop them faster than a hot potato).

Myth-busting 2025 2015 Procurement Predictions and Trends! Part 4

Introduction

In our first instalment, we noted that the ambitious started pumping out 2025 prediction and trend articles in late November / early December, wanting to be ahead of the pack, even though there is rarely much value in these articles. First of all, and we say this with 25 years of experience in this space, the more they proclaim things will change … Secondly, the predictions all revolve around the same topics we’ve been talking about for almost two decades. In fact, if you dug up a Procurement predictions article for 2015, there’s a good chance 9 of the top 10 topic areas would be the same. (And see the links in our first article for two “future” series with about 3 dozen trends that are more or less as relevant now as they were then.)

In our last instalment, we continued our review of the 10 core predictions (and variants) that came out of our initial review of 71 “predictions” and “trends” across the first eight articles we found, in an effort to demonstrate that most of these aren’t ground-shattering, new, or, if they actually are, not going to happen because the more they proclaim things will change …

In this instalment, we’re again continuing to work our way up the list from the bottom to the top and continuing with “supplier management”.

Supplier Management

There were 6 predictions across the eight articles which basically revolved around “collaboration” with some focus on “development”. This is yet another topic that is overhyped and needs to be addressed, but, as with our last two articles, we will start by listing all of the individual predictions:

  • Agile Supplier Management
  • Collaborative Platforms
  • Enhanced Supplier Collaboration
  • Enhanced Supplier Collaboration
  • Supplier Collaboration and Strategic Partnerships
  • Supplier Development and Growth

Here’s the thing. For anything not a commodity, an organization’s success ultimately depends on supplier performance. While supplier performance will be good from the start for some suppliers, it won’t be so good for others. In these cases, it won’t always improve just be rejecting shipments. Sometimes it will require collaboration, which means that collaboration has always been, and will always be, important. So it’s nothing new. The only difference is that, as disruptions become more common, products require more differentiation and rapid advancement, and supply chains need to rapidly shift as raw material sources and distribution routes become unavailable, we are in a situation where collaboration is becoming increasingly more critical.

As a result, collaboration will increase in some supply chains as it is needed, but you won’t see a sudden shift en masse for Procurement to all of a sudden become more collaborative with its suppliers unless it needs to. While there is always a lot of talk about how collaborative an organization is, especially at RFP time, the reality is, as we all know, once the contract is inked, unless the supplier is considered very strategic, the chance of actual collaboration is very low.

The best one can hope for is that the organization selects supplier management software that enables better communication and collaboration than is usually supported by such software, which will mean that, over time, collaboration may increase before a disaster scenario that requires it to do so.

The only prediction that may become true in a small number of Procurement organizations that install more modern, collaborative, agile platforms is they become more agile in supplier management, begin collaboration when potential issues are detected, see how easy it is, and actually start supplier development before major problems arise.

What Should Happen? (But Won’t!)

Organizations should acquire supplier performance management and development systems that allow them to track supplier performance, identify blips and downward trends, and immediately identity, and implement, appropriate supplier development programs … in a collaborative fashion with the suppliers. This will identify which suppliers need more collaboration, when, and help you get to the why. That’s it. It’s not giving collaboration lip service, looking for “agile” systems, creating new “partnerships”, etc. It’s just identifying which suppliers need collaboration, when, why, how, and getting it done … with straight-forward supplier performance management and development systems.

Three down, seven to go.

Myth-busting 2025 2015 Procurement Predictions and Trends! Part 3

Introduction

In our first instalment, we noted that the ambitious started pumping out 2025 prediction and trend articles in late November / early December, wanting to be ahead of the pack, even though there is rarely much value in these articles. First of all, and we say this with 25 years of experience in this space, the more they proclaim things will change … Secondly, the predictions all revolve around the same topics we’ve been talking about for almost two decades. In fact, if you dug up a Procurement predictions article for 2015, there’s a good chance 9 of the top 10 topic areas would be the same. (And see the links in our first article for two “future” series with about 3 dozen trends that are more or less as relevant now as they were then.)

In our last instalment, we started at the bottom of the list of the 10 core predictions (and variants) that came out of our initial review of 71 “predictions” and “trends” across the first eight articles we found, in an effort to demonstrate that most of these aren’t ground-shattering, new, or, if they actually are, not going to happen because the more they proclaim things will change …

In this instalment, we’re continuing to work our way up the list from the bottom to the top and continuing with “talent”.

Talent

There were 9 predictions which basically revolved around “up-skilling” and a “silver workforce”. Both of these we need to address, and myth-bust, but, as with our last article, we will start by listing all of the distinct predictions:

  • Continuous Learning and Development
  • More Time for the Human Side of Procurement
  • The “Golden Age of the Silver Worker”
  • Necessary Skills Will Continue to Evolve Alongside AI Integration
  • Procurement Workforce will Continue to Transform
  • Talent and Skills Development
  • Tipping Point for Procurement Skills Mismatch
  • Training & Up-Skilling
  • Young Talent Skill Hesitates to Enter Procurement

Every year a small minority says that this is the year that Procurement will get more skilled, but every year we don’t see much progress beyond the status quo, and that’s because, despite all of the lip-service we hear on the importance of talent, no one every allocates any significant budget to training. And if they do, it’s the first budget line to get cut. Nothing has changed much in the last two decades. Especially in North America — the belief is that you should already have all of the training for the job when you’re hired and, therefore, should NOT need any training. While necessary skills need to evolve alongside new Tech and AI integration, the skills that evolve organically won’t be much beyond what is needed to use the default workflow in the tool.

So while up-skilling is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL for better performance, for the most part, it’s not going to happen (beyond what employees can learn from using better tools with embedded, human reviewed, best practice). Any continuous learning and development that happens will be due to an action of the individual to go above and beyond, on their own time, to get better at their job (and then move on to a company that appreciates them more). And there won’t be more time for the human side of Procurement until companies implement modern, best practice, digital processes; better train their people to focus on the strategic and do strategic tasks better; and realize that Procurement is more than e-paper pushing. Significant progress is needed in the majority of Procurement departments to get to the human side.

And while it is also true that Procurement is still not a top occupational choice for young talent, the prediction that we are entering “the golden age of the silver worker” and that they will stick around is really off the mark. First of all, companies are still trying to find ways to retire senior talent, who they view as too expensive (and who they think they can replace with AI and cheap young talent in a third world economy), that go beyond offering early retirement options and include restructurings (to force layoffs), forced back to work (and assumed resignations if they don’t show up in the office), hour/location/team changes that they hope the older generation will find unacceptable (and leave on their own), and so on. Secondly, the “silver workers” you would want to keep are the ones that have the education, experience, talent, and track record to perform in the new digital-first Procurement economy, and that top talent pool is the talent pool that likely did very well over the last decade or so and probably doesn’t need to work — whereas the silver workers that need to work (and are willing to stay) are not the well educated and experienced strategic thinkers, but e-paper pushers that really have no role when most of their work can be automated.

At the end of the day, it’s the same ol’, Same Ol’ Situation … not enough (senior) talent, not enough skills in the talent we have, and technology advancing faster than the average organization is able to keep up with. Until a considerable focus is made on a) showing the younger generation that being a Procurement Pro is being Someone Who’s Cool and b) giving them proper, real-world training when they enter their job (without fear that they will just take that training and jump to a competitor in a year) (because no University is going to give it to them), there’ll always be a talent shortage, and it is now holding you back more than the platforms you are using (because even second generation platforms from fifteen years ago can be efficiently used to get damn good results if you know what you’re doing — and having seen the ProcureTech revolution since the first systems hit twenty-five years ago today, we are saying that with confidence).

What Should Happen? (But Won’t!)

1. Mentorships!

For two to three years, companies need to “over”*-invest in talent by retaining top-notch experience grey-hairs (the lucky ones) and bald heads to mentor new talent in the Art of Procurement (TM) and all of the systems, category, market, and business knowledge they need to be successful (and know when the Artificial Idiocy [“AI”] systems the MBAs are relying on are wrong) and keep the business in the black. We’re not the only ones to see the urgent need for mentorships. THE PROPHET sees it as well, as per his article on apprenticeships.

2. Knowledge Management Systems (KMS)

This 80 year old idea and 50 year old system concept is one that desperately needs to be revived and employed. Designed to capture, organize, and facilitate the distribution and utilization of an organizational knowledge, these systems were never adopted in the majority of organizations’s because they were seen as an unnecessary expense. Most managers, especially those from the age of low turnover, said “our people know their jobs, they work in teams, we only lose one or two at a time, and when we replace them, the pros that are left are there to help the new hires, so why do we need this unnecessary expense” and just ignored these systems. And while this was true in the 80s and 90s, where you got a job and were there for years (if not life), this started to change rapidly in the 00s. Now a lot of people change jobs every 2-3 years and organizations struggle to retain any knowledge — because as this shift started, the managers insisted on hanging on to their old mentality, would not consider KMS, or even admit how much the pace of change was accelerating. Then, to justify their decisions, they argued that “if lots of people change jobs every 2-3 years, then after a decade, they’ve worked in 3-4 organizations before they come to us and bring better practices with them, so we don’t need that KMS”, which would be true IF those resources received any decent training or mentorship at their past jobs. However, there’s never any training budget, or enough senior people to mentor the new hires, so all they bring with them is their scars and failures and hard knock learnings, which may or may not be appropriate for your organization. So please take Knowledge Management out of cryogenics before it’s too late!

Not only do we need a revival of mentorship, but organizations need to implement KMS systems that, as the knowledge is passed on, capture it in case the new hires leave or are unable to absorb everything at once.

Anyway, that’s two “trends” down, eight to go!

* there’s no such thing as “over” investing in talent, but the idiot MBAs with no real world experience and no knowledge of what the business does (because all they did as get a BBA, then an MBA, then an internment in a Big 3 or Big 4 where they followed poorly written playbooks to write up generic advice to clients) who have a number for how much every department should spend on “human resources” believe that any amount over that number is over-investing (but we’ll remind you again, this breed of MBAs are moronic Masters of Business Annihilation and should not be listened to)