We Need Better Events!

This will probably get me blacklisted by half the events in the space, but I don’t care … especially since I have no interest in going to half the events in our space anyway. (Now, are both sets the same? Probably Not. Am I blacklisting myself from events that might be worthwhile? Probably. Do I care? Well, if you’ve been reading the doctor‘s rants for eighteen (18) years, you know the answer … the truth comes first!)

This is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, but a recent article by Gaurav Sharma on how his buyer’s mindset is bugging him on a point, along with recent conversations on LinkedIn, have convinced me it’s time to write it.

Most of today’s big events are a complete waste of time and money for practitioners and vendors alike! I’m talking the ISMs, eWorlds, DPWs, and events like that. And I’m dead serious.

Why?

Vendor: You’re paying 50K to 100K for that event. When you consider the cost of the booth display materials (5K to 10K); the booth, equipment and services rental (30K+); giveaways and fancy dinners (5K to 10K+); getting and housing a small team there (20K to 40K); etc., it’s a lot of money. And for what? A chance to hock your wares to a small (less than 50%) set of attendees who are also being shouted out by 50 to 100 other vendors? At least half of whom have no decision or spending authority at the end of the day? Besides the ability to say for three (3) days: “look at us, we made it“?, what do you get? Maybe a handful of leads if you’re lucky? With each of those leads costing you 10K+. And nothing if you aren’t so lucky!

For each 10K you spend, you could have an expert write a piece of content that could be part of a year-long educational campaign that could be used to generate real leads through sign-up downloads, webinar sign-ups, follow-up conversations and downloads (when someone contacts you to learn more, and thanks you for educating them vs. just shouting marketing soundbites at them), etc. For the 80K you would spend on a glitzy event, you could get 4 custom pieces of content, 4 webinars, and a year-long educationally oriented marketing campaign that you’d be thanked for.

Practitioner Organization: It will cost you 7.5K to 10K for each senior lead, director, and CPO you send to a 3-day event. You’re probably budgeting 25K to 30K to send a small team. And what are you getting for it? A bunch of high-level presentations on various topics by a bunch of people you don’t know, usually not much different than the presentations you saw two years ago on the same topics by different people you don’t know, which aren’t deep enough to teach you anything (except re-emphasize important areas you need to drill down deep on).

A bunch of discussions with random vendors, many of whom won’t be relevant to you, while you completely miss the chance to talk to those vendors who would be because there was no way you could get to them all and without good pre-vetting and education, you were just rolling the bones and engaging randomly (or, if you were hungry, with whatever vendor rep offered you the most tantalizing dinner option).

For that same 25K, you could have an expert from a niche mid-sized consultancy come in and give your team a 1 to 2-day course on a specific problem or area of relevance — i.e. what do modern e-Procurement systems do, how do you select the right one, and who are five vendors that are commonly used by your peers; what regulatory changes are coming in global e-Invoicing requirements over the next two years, and what will we have to do to keep up; how can we address carbon accounting reporting requirements while embedding better carbon management into our supplier development and supply change management; etc. And let me repeat — your whole team, not just 3 people where 2 of them are responsible for multiple areas (or everything) and have no time to train anyone else or oversee the process, program, or technology that needs to be put in place.

The only people who get their money’s worth at these events are:

1. Consultants who don’t sponsor, don’t stay at the overpriced event hotel, but just go and spend their entire time talking to vendors they don’t know (to engage with them firsthand on fact-finding and relationship building) and Directors/CPOs (to find out what the common themes are that they should market too) and come away with verified/renewed focus and new options to sell to their clients.

2. The Organizers who get the fame and the fortune (as they collect a cut of all money coming in).

But does this mean all events are, or have to be, bad?

No. An event would be very worthwhile if:

  • it didn’t try to be everything to everyone (and ended up being nothing to anyone),
  • instead focussed on a market niche (market size – geography – problem or process), and
  • kept the size down, the balance appropriate, and the value up.

Let’s dive into this.

Focus

For an event to be truly valuable, it has to address a relevant problem or technology for a (similar) group of organizations which have a similar problem or need. By this, I typically mean market size (small to mid-market, mid-market and above, large mid-market through global enterprise), region(s) with similar market dynamics (North America and Western Europe, Central and South America, India, China, etc.), and a focus on a technology (Procure to Pay, e-Procurement, I2P/AP, Supplier Management, Direct Sourcing, etc.) or problem (Carbon Regulation and Accounting, Data Management and Predictive Analytics, etc.). This allows organizations to self select as being interested, or needing insight, in this problem or technology, vendors with appropriate technology to come forward (and be vetted by the event organizers as relevant), and the event to ensure value will be received by all attendees — practitioners will get relevant talks and panels (as all the sessions will be appropriately oriented) as well as a chance to learn about solution providers who provide solutions relevant to their peers (and possibly them) and vendors will know that the practitioners are actually interested in the type of technology they are offering, and leads will be real (and more plentiful).

Balance

There should be considerably more practitioners than vendor reps. At least 2 to 1, and preferably 3 to 1. The event organizer can limit vendor registrations based on attendees, as well as the number of reps a vendor can send. This helps the vendors (by ensuring there are more than enough practitioners to go around, which means they will spend more time talking to practitioners than each other) as well as the practitioners (by not only ensuring they aren’t overloaded by irrelevant vendors but by ensuring they have a lot of peers to talk to for insights as well).

Size

A good event is big enough to ensure there is enough variety in vendors and in peers to talk to, but not so big you get lost in a sea of people. In the doctor‘s view, it’s 50 to 500-ish, depending on whether:

  • you’re narrowly focused on one specific (emerging) problem and want to only talk to senior peers: in which case you’re looking for a round table event, 50-ish senior practitioners, 3 to 5 vendors with 2 reps each, and a single large meeting room at a hotel
  • you’re focused on acquiring or upgrading a best-of-breed module to solve a small set of problems such as data analytics, supplier management, or strategic sourcing: then you will want 200 to 300 people, 5 to 10 vendors with 2-3 reps each, a lot of common sessions, and a few breakout sessions on particular problem types or advanced solution features (predictive demand modelling, sourcing optimization, supplier development program implementation, etc.)
  • you’re interested in upgrading your sourcing or procurement capability across the board and/or learning about the current advancements, best practices, and issues in the space in which case you’d want a slightly larger event focused on your market size and geography, with maybe two to three dozen vendors with 3-4 reps each, 500+ (but < 1000) participants, and multiple tracks … still capable of being held at a large, but affordable, hotel

And since all of these events are smaller, it shouldn’t cost an attendee more than 5K in the worst case for 3 days of valuable information and vendor discovery or a vendor more than 20K for a low-cost booth and valuable leads (+ rep costs). And while this is still a sizeable amount of coin for a smaller procurement organization to send 3 people or a vendor to have a both and send 3 reps, it’s still less than half the cost of a bigger event for both parties for considerably more value.

This was the direction I’d hope a certain new event organizer would take when it started a few years ago as a smaller event focused on smaller players and newer tech, and the direction I’m hoping the next new event org will take. Not one big event that tries to be everything to everyone and instead ends up being just a sea of noise, but a series of smaller events across the Americas and Europe that are focused, give more affordable opportunities to more smaller, relevant players, and much more value to the attendees.

Will it happen? History has repeatedly shown it won’t, but if it ever does, the value will be unparalleled to all the attendees.

 

For those curious, the doctor‘s original response to Gaurav on “better events” was the following:

Instead of oversized, overpriced, events pretending to be everything to everyone we need smaller, more focused events that focus on particular problems or technologies for particular markets for (dedicated) Senior Leads, Directors and CPOs only.

T: Sourcing for the Mid-Market in North America and Western Europe
(Primarily EN business, similar processes)
T: e-Procurement for Mid-Market and Large Enterprise in Central and South America
(lots of e-Invoicing Regs, all Spanish or Portuguese)
T: Supply Chain Logistics for India and China
(where we’re still buying everything from)
P: Carbon Management for the modern LMM or Large enterprise in the Americas or Europe
(relevant supply management, carbon accounting, etc. tech for enterprises facing regulations)
P: Procurement Maturity for the growing Mid-Market
(focusing on maturity models, emerging best practices, and new category / knowledge management tech)

Then, when a CPO spends her 5K to go and discuss, she’s focused on a relevant topic, learning something, and seeing demos from vendors with appropriately focused solutions on one or more aspects of the problem (vetted by the organizer). Everything is relevant. For 10K, she can take the lead or director who will be charged with the program and system implementation. Money well spent.

And if she’s in a larger organization, she can take that 10K she saved and invest it in a startup fund, which could also be present at the event, that is collecting funds to seed various startups in S2P+ disciplines and direct that the money be invested in a startup focused on tech to solve her biggest problem. (And this foreshadows an upcoming article.)

Advanced Sourcing Tomorrow — No Gen-AI Needed!

Back in late 2018 and early 2019, before the GENizah Artificial Idiocy craze began, the doctor did a sequence of AI Series (totalling 22 articles) on Spend Matters on AI in X Today, Tomorrow, and The Day After Tomorrow for Procurement, Sourcing, Sourcing Optimization, Supplier Discovery, and Supplier Management. All of which was implemented, about to be implemented, capable of being implemented, and most definitely not doable with, Gen-AI.

To make it abundantly clear that you don’t need Gen-AI for any advanced back-office (fin)tech, and that, in fact, you should never even consider it for advanced tech in these categories (because it cannot reason, cannot guarantee consistency, and confidence on the quality of its outputs can’t even measured), we’re going to talk about all the advanced features enabled by Assisted and Augmented Intelligence that are (or soon will be) in development (now) and you will see in leading best of breed platforms over the next few years.

Unlike prior series, we’re identifying the sound, ML/AI technologies that are, or can, be used to implement the advanced capabilities that are currently emerging, and will soon be found, in Source to Pay technologies that are truly AI-enhanced. (Which, FYI, may not match one-to-one with what the doctor chronicled five years ago because, like time, tech marches on.)

Today we continue with AI-Enhanced Sourcing that is in development “today” (and expected to be in development by now when the first series was penned five years ago) and will soon be a staple in best of breed platforms (and may be found emerging in development beta versions of some platforms). (This article sort of corresponds with AI in Sourcing The Day After Tomorrow that was published in January, 2019 on Spend Matters.)

TOMORROW

Automatic Strategic Sourcing Events

Just like tomorrow’s Procurement platforms will automatically identify products/services and (sub) categories that should be pulled out of the tail and inventory/catalog/one-time req buying and pulled into a strategic sourcing event, tomorrow’s sourcing platforms will create automatic events from them. Furthermore, tomorrow’s sourcing platforms will automatically create the entire event using the default category strategy (possibly adjusted to the current market conditions, see the next forthcoming capability), automatically pull in the (organizationally approved) suppliers, automatically pull in any questionnaires or documents that need to be completed by the bidders, automatically pull in supplier profile information and current prices (where available), and, if you set the flag for “no review prior to event initiation”, automatically send out the RFX, which could be the first in a series of RFXs/e-Auctions in a multi-round event. If the event is multi-round, after each round it can analyze the responses and any supplier who provides all of the necessary information (and makes the cut price/quality/risk/carbon/etc. cut) makes the next round. It will auto-execute the next round and keep going until the event has been completed and an award recommendation is made. Then, depending on the setting (auto-award, human review), it will either compute a recommended award and notify a buyer to approve, modify, or reject the award, or automatically send the award to to the suppliers for acceptance (with a contract for high-value or strategic products/services or a PO for lower value, more tactical offerings).

From a tech perspective, all this needs is the ability to analyze spend patterns and demand trends (trend analysis) to identify categories ripe for sourcing, product classifications to match to the category strategy, and product-supplier pairings to pull in the suppliers (and associated data), with current and preferred suppliers getting priority if there are too many. The rest is just workflow automation until the initial responses are returned. Then, it’s just analyzing the data with respect to expectations and tolerances, and either recommending an award based on the strategy, organizational priorities, and organizational constraints, or sending out the next round requests (deeper RFIs, price updates, etc.) to those suppliers who provided complete, satisfactory, answers according to business rules. This is just analytics, optimization, and good ol’ math coded with human intelligence (HI!).

Market-Based Sourcing Strategy Identification

Today, the best platforms support category-based sourcing strategy identification where the platform can identify the standard, best-practice, strategy based on the category and items, determine whether or not the strategy is likely to be relevant given available market data (supply availability, historical price variants, current market prices, etc.), and make a go-no recommendation to the buyer. Tomorrow, these platforms will be able to first analyze all of the market information, supplier information, product information, carbon information, risk information, and compare that to current company performance an demand and identify the right sourcing strategy for the event, making sure to dynamically align the category (which can include adding or dropping items and services) as required.

From a tech perspective, all this needs is access to extensive market data feeds, a large history of sourcing event and results with associated market data (relative to the supply vs. demand imbalance, price trends, demand trends, major risk factors, etc.), pattern analysis that correlates successful events (with results < market price) with market conditions (supply > demand, prices steady or falling, low market risk in the supply base –> e-Auction; supply >= demand, prices rising with inflation, low to moderate risk –> RFX; supply projected <= demand, prices rising above inflation, moderate risk –> renegotiate with the incumbent(s) before the contracts expire), pattern analysis of the current market conditions compared to historical patterns of success, and the selection of the best match. All trend analysis, correlation/(k-)means analysis, tolerances, and, you guessed it, math! Then you just kick off the category-attuned sourcing event as above.

Real-Time Strategy Alignment in (Automatic) Strategic Sourcing Events

However, tomorrow’s AI-based sourcing capabilities won’t stop there. The platform will monitor all relevant market (related) conditions as the event progresses, compare all of the responses to those that were predicted/expected, and if, at any point during the (automatic) event something is too far off, it will automatically pause the event and either, depending on system configuration, alert the buyer that a shift in strategy is required (and what the new strategy it should be) or simply shift the event as appropriate (if possible; in the public sector, not always possible, but in the private sector, usually possible).

From a tech perspective, all this needs is trend and outlier analysis, pattern matching, and, you guessed it, math.

SKU Recommendation and Replacement

Tomorrow’s platforms will get better at identifying replacement SKUs not just in indirect (paper with similar thickness, weight, and gloss when the differences are inconsequential from a business point of view), but direct as well (compatible processors, with the same form factor, number of connections, compatible clock rate, and sufficient L1 cache). This is difficult because you need a lot of specification data, and most applications need it appropriately structured in a format no other application supports in order to process it. But, despite the focus on the Gen-AI bullcr@p, semantic processing is continuing to advance and as more and more validated database are built on each product and service type, and more specifications are added to each product and service type. As a result, these applications are getting better and better at helping to identify acceptable alternates with slightly different, but compatible, specs that can help Procurement and engineers find more cost-effective alternatives, including new tech that will have a longer shelf life.

As this tech continues to improve, it will be able to not just look at SKUs, but subassemblies, such as processor-controller board-memory combinations, that can be switched out to provide more cost effective alternatives with better reliability, risk span, or quality. This will be the result of not only a better understanding of each subcomponent, but the interaction requirements and overall processing power capable of handling the combinatorial explosion needed to automatically identify new potential subsystems, and not just components, automatically.

EOL Recommendation

Many niche PLM systems will already do this, but tomorrow’s sourcing systems will do this not just from a traditional “tech curve” perspective, but also from a Procurement and Supply Chain perspective, balancing life-span with price trends, material supply, market risk, and carbon impact. If a current product requires a large concentration of a rare earth mineral or metal (in short supply) or an ingredient that can only be grown in a few places in the world, and a new product comes along that requires less (or none) but still provides the same use (or at least a suitable alternative for consumption in the latter case), then it makes sense to switch over as soon as the cost is appropriate. Similarly, if one product is only available from a risky supplier or a risky country (with rising political or market instability) or has an unnecessarily high carbon cost, switching out could also be a priority.

Using trend analysis on demand and (future) cost, risk projections, and carbon costs, tomorrow’s sourcing systems will find the optimal inflection points (using analytics and optimization) for switch over and make early end-of-life recommendations so Procurement and Engineering can plan early for the switch-over and schedule the appropriate sourcing events for the appropriate timeframes (and ensure contract lengths are optimal). And, again, no Gen-AI needed!

SUMMARY

Now, we realize some of these descriptions are dense, but that’s because our primary goal is to demonstrate that one can use the more advanced ML technologies that already exist, harmonized with market and corporate data, to create even smarter Sourcing applications than most people (and last generation suites) realize, without any need (or use) for Gen-AI, that the organization can rely upon to reduce time, tactical data processing, spend, and risk while increasing output and overall organizational performance. It just requires smart vendors who hire very smart people who use their human intelligence (HI!) to full potential to create brilliant Sourcing applications that buyers can rely on with confidence no matter what category or organization size, always knowing that the application will know when a human has to be involved, and why!

Digital Procurement Transformation Requires Strategy and Design …

… not just new technology! (As THE REVELATOR would say, an agent-first approach, not an equation-first approach.)

A recent article on Turner and Townsend noted that while effective digital-first procurement strategies are key to capturing the necessary data and providing the comprehensive visibility needed to manage complex and multi-faceted risks, a digital-first procurement strategy demands a strategic overhaul – it cannot only be about adding technology to existing processes.

Furthermore, it needs more than a cultural shift to integrate a digital golden thread that aligns the organization’s overarching commercial vision and the enterprise-wide digital ecosystem. It needs a technological shift, one that goes from looking at technology as a saviour to technology as what it always was, just a tool, and a tool that only works if

  • properly selected,
  • properly used, and
  • placed in the hands of an appropriately educated, trained, and skilled individual.

Furthermore, it doesn’t matter how modern the tool, how much “AI” inside, or what provider is offering it. Just like a power drill won’t screw in a nail, a Gen-AI solution won’t provide a strategy, won’t analyze generic data in a meaningful way to select a sourcing strategy, and won’t properly parse and automate that invoice. (That’s not what it’s for. It will summarize large supplier RFP submissions and crawl through your contracts for common clauses, or lack thereof, but that’s it … it’s just a huge document parser and summarizer.)

Only the right platform will solve your problems, and you’ll only be able to select one if

  • you analyze your processes and identify the data you need
  • you analyze where the data comes from
  • you analyze who has to create / enter any data that needs to be manually vetted …
  • you determine the TQ level of all those individuals who need to use the system
  • you analyze the potential systems with respect to their ability to store the data you need, collect it automatically from any data feeds it is available in, and collect it through manual submission in easy-to-use interfaces that minimizes the chance of error on data entry
  • and when you find ones that meet the data need, then you confirm they can support the process needs …
  • and then you do vendor diligence.

But without the right platform, no progress will be made and, in fact, if you consider the failure stats, chances are the wrong platform will worsen the situation. Technology is NOT an easy button. You still have to do the work of vetting it, implementing it, configuring it, and even when it can automate a task, verifying it on a regular basis (as well as identifying when an exceptional condition arises and dealing with that regularly). Technology can make your life (much) more efficient, and easier, but it’s not an easy button. Never forget that.

Always Start Your Vendor Qualification with a Deep-Dive Demo!

In a recent article, THE REVELATOR asked how many practitioners do a pre-demo discovery call to determine whether seeing a demo is even warranted??

It was a fair question, but for most practitioners, the question is unnecessary because,

  • if you agreed to the demo as a practitioner, then you should have confirmed from the initial sales call that there was enough to actually see (by listening to a rep that sold a solution, not software, and that answered your tough questions);
  • the demo will tell you if it’s worth diving into the vendor’s background, philosophy, and services approach; and, most importantly,
  • if you’re not a senior executive at a large enough company, there’s no way you’re going to get the attention of the right people for that discovery call. (As a [perceived] unqualified lead, you’re not getting a senior person on that pre-demo interview … just a Sales VP who knows what to say to hook you, whether it’s true or not!)

The reality is that any discovery beyond an initial demo to confirm the vendor actually has a solution and, more importantly, a solution that might actually help you by solving some of your problems, is meaningless. Company history, philosophy, and go-forward don’t matter if they don’t have anything worth working with them.

It’s important to remember that technology cannot overcome a solution provider’s misaligned business values and goals. If the tech is wrong (or just not there), the tech is wrong. Not only do you need real tech (and not vapourware), but you need tech that solves one or more problems you have.

As such, if you dig in on a company before seeing the tech, you could be wasting your time. Especially if you do it for every provider given that you will likely go through half a dozen potential providers before you even find one worth to include in your RFP (when you consider all the overhyped marketing and misleading marketing you need to work your way through).

Moreover, forcing a demo early will quickly cause some vendors (without a solution) to self deselect! If you insist on a demo that shows how they solve the problems they claim and how it’s relevant to you, and they don’t have a deep solution and/or knowledge of your industry, they will likely decide it’s not worth the time trying to bluff you and save you the time and effort of invalidating them as a potential provider. (And, in effect, bypassing the technology-led equation-based providers off the cuff, since they won’t even get the demo if they can’t convince you they are about solving problems first and tech second.)

However, if you get through the demo, put the vendor on your shortlist, and tell them that, you can be sure your follow-up company deep dive call will include the right senior people at the vendor, and not just a say-what-you-want-to-hear Sales VP.

So You Admit You Might Be a Dead-Company Walking. How Do You Avoid the Graveyard? Part 4

In short, as per Part 1, you

  1. keep admitting to every mistake you are making and do something about it, then
  2. continue by looking for cost-effective opportunities for improvement and pursue them and finally
  3. never, ever, ever forget the timeless basics.

Today, we’ll continue by describing what you do when you identify, and admit to, one of the next two mistakes (mistakes 5 & 6) we chronicled in our two part introduction to our “dead company walking” (Part 1 and Part 2) series (where we helped your potential customers identify problems that signify you are a SaaS supplier they should be walking away from). (You can find part 2 and part 3 here.)

5) An innovation burst is enough, especially if it is disruptive

A successful innovation burst is great as it can get you noticed, and as it’s very hard to get noticed in an overcrowded space (again, see the Mega Map), that’s a great start. But someone noticing you does not mean they’ll engage with you, and engagement does not mean they will buy from you.

Moreover, it’s never long before a one-trick pony loses the limelight as fast as he enters it. If you want to stay in the limelight, which wants to move on to the next story as soon as you’ve had your 15 seconds of fame, you need to keep innovating, or at least developing the core functionality necessary to flesh out the value message to the point the overall message is so compelling people want to hear it and repeat it.

The reality is that it is continued development, especially around core processes your technology is being designed to support, that will at least keep you on the periphery of the limelight, and that is where you need to be to not only attract enough potential customers, but convert them into customers who want, as we’ve been stating repeatedly, solid solutions to their problem and not shiny tech that looks cool but doesn’t do what they need it to do.

6) Too much investment, too soon, against an overly ambitious plan

This is one of the biggest threats to your success, especially since you will be pushed to scale up fast to support the rapid growth, that won’t come, or at least not early in your corporate development. Falling for this will burn the cash well before you are even close to break-even, and if you can’t raise additional funds fast when you run out, you’re dead.

The first thing to do when you raise too much money is to stop dead in your tracks, stop all external hiring and engagement, and step back and do the detailed market research described in our first mistake and figure out the MVP you’ll actually need to build a significant market share, and focus first on hiring the talent / or acquiring the third party tech, to get there as soon as possible.

Then you need to figure out what not only makes a good customer, but one that is easy to sell. It’s likely that the majority of these customers will need education to get them there. The next thing to do is hire the product people who can build these educational assets for marketing, sales, partners, and customers.

When you get close on the product and the marketing, then you start to ramp up marketing and high-performing sales (who can work without a lot of support and incomplete, but progressing monthly, assets) to start building the initial funnel when you are ready to go hard.

Then start building up your services teams with senior resources who can do multiple roles and initial implementations with little support.

And only once all the pieces start falling into place do you start scaling up.

And in the process, be sure to:

  • review the marketing plan: cut the funding to anything not focussed on education and thought leadership in the early days
  • review sales: cut the “leads” to those truly qualified with problems that match your solution; and definitely cut the spray and forget power washer lead blasting from 3rd parties, you want well qualified leads only
  • review the development plan: make sure it’s 90% steak and only 10% sizzle; sizzle doesn’t solve problems, or fill bellies, and that’s why customers want steak
  • review the budget: anything not going to educational/thought leadership marketing, qualified solution-based lead generation, or solid development is extraneous and needs to be cut ASAP to ensure the money lasts until the solution is broad and deep enough to serve the intended market, command the expected price tag, and get the interest you need for steady, continued, growth

Stay tuned for Part 5!