While I am hard pressed to understand the reasons why industry blogger and analyst coverage of the Periscope acquisition of BidSync has been limited to the usual commentary, with no real follow-up beyond the initial announcement, one thing of which I am certain is this . . . being the lone voice has its benefits.
Even though I have always had a strong presence through a solid base of core followers, what has evolved into a major controversy has seen the number of reads for this blog literally triple since I began covering what is now known has #CodeGate.
However, and looking at the situation from a purely best interests of the procurement industry standpoint, such silence is extremely troubling.
For example, talking about how “BidSync currently has more than 70 direct pay clients (non-channel/partner) … and a supplier database,” or that the deal may mark the emergence of an An American Public Sector Source-to-Settle Powerhouse in the Making, means very little given the underlying impact of what is clearly a serious conflict of interest.
I am not simply talking about an adjunct to the main story. What I am talking about is THE MAIN STORY.
If the conflict of interest relating to the NIGP – Periscope relationship were left unreported and unchallenged, significant and perhaps irreparable harm would be done to the public sector procurement world.
The apparent and deliberate attempt by a private sector company to monopolize a market that spends billions of dollars, with the seeming acquiescent consent of a not-for-profit association that is supposed to be protecting and advancing the best interests of government procurement as opposed to capitalizing on it, has far reaching consequences. This includes the very programs and services the everyday citizen expects and relies upon in terms of life quality.
In this context – and I think it is worth repeating, references suggesting that “The marriage of Periscope and BidSync is important because it has the potential to provide these prospects something much closer to the coveted full suite,” is of little relevance. This is the same as debating whether the chairs on the Titanic are comfortable after the ship has hit the iceberg.
Typical blogger and analyst coverage of the procurement industry?
In seeking the answer to the question why the bloggers and analysts have completely missed this story – as well as others before it, I have received some interesting feedback.
To begin, there is a general feeling that they are not equipped and or inclined to do investigative reporting beyond that with which they are most familiar, and likely most comfortable.
Others have suggested that they tend to avoid meaningful stories if there is a hint of controversy that might impose upon existing relationships within the industry. In this regard, the fact that the majority of my revenue stream comes from outside of the procurement world means that I am less inclined to worry about telling it like it is. Even in those instances where there is a revenue tie-in, it doesn’t change the way I cover a story . . . just ask the CFO from Elcom.
For example, after I met NIGP’s Chief Executive Rick Grimm for the first time at a conference in November, in which I was the moderator for a panel that he was on, we exchanged e-mails. In one such exchange, and based on the success of that panel discussion, Rick wrote the following:
“Jon, it was great fun. I thoroughly enjoyed the sequence of the debate and I’m interested in learning the results of their evaluation on this session. This is an activity that we (NIGP) have tried to cultivate for several years – in fact, we tried panel discussions several years ago without much success. Like most organizations, we tend to kick a good idea to the curb when it’s simply a matter of execution. As a panelist at your session, I plan to re-introduce this option to my meeting planner for the 2015 NIGP conference. Let’s keep in touch. I enjoyed ‘working’ with you and I see potential for continuing our discussions.” – Rick, Procurement. It’s Everywhere., NIGP: The Institute for Public Procurement
Given my recent series of posts – especially the April 8th, 2015 entry Watching NIGP Chief Exec implode is both sad and troubling, I am not going to hold my breath in terms of said discussion continuing. However that’s fine with me, because whether I was engaged by the NIGP to moderate a panel discussion (or not), it would not have changed one word of what I have already written or for that matter will write.
Does this kind of coverage really matter in terms of the big picture?
The bigger issue here again is regardless of whether they are unwilling or incapable of stepping up to the plate and providing their take onwhat is an incredibly important story, with the exception of a few brave souls, the majority of industry bloggers and analysts have dropped the ball. This raises the question . . . can we trust their coverage going forward?
Just started following the NIGP #CodeGate story? Use the following link to access the Post Archive; https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/nigp-codegate/
You can follow my coverage of this story on Twitter using the Hashtags #missbid and #CodeGate
On The Go? You can also listen to the audio version of this post as well as others through @Umano https://umano.me/jhansen
30
Procurement Insights 
Pierre Mitchell
April 21, 2015
John, I only just saw this! Please reach out to us if we’re missing stuff like you’ve uncovered… before you roll us over and lump us in w/ Gartner! We did do a deep dive analysis in our premium subscription, but it was mostly from a technology buyers perspective regarding a SWOT type of analysis of the combined offering. We didn’t omit this because of lack of courage, but more because lack of time to stay on top of every issue in every industry with every provider! In fact, I’m personally very sensitive to the whole objectivity thing as I wrote here: http://spendmatters.com/2014/05/28/toothless-bumbles-and-the-search-for-objectivity-in-the-procurement-solutions-market/
As I wrote in my commentary on your other piece, we wholeheartedly support your position on this issue. Non-profits, especially those geared towards acquisition professionals and transparent procurement, shouldn’t point their members to ‘standards’ owned by them and licensed in a monopolistic setting by a commercial entity with close ties to that non-profit. If it looks bad, and smells bad, and sounds bad, and feels bad, it’s probably bad! Keep up the good fight. You are indeed on the right side of this issue.
If you want a laugh on a related issue, see John Oliver’s video on patent trolls…
piblogger
April 21, 2015
Duly noted Pierre . . . and thank you for the share of the Oliver video.
On another note, your reference to a “SWOT type of analysis of the combined offering” raises an interesting question; to what degree has the viability and related benefits of the Periscope-BidSync offering been undermined by their NIGP relationship?
In short, does #CodeGate detract from their solution’s ability to deliver results, and will it cause potential customers to be wary of engaging them?
Pierre Mitchell
April 21, 2015
Let’s just say that it doesn’t help. Relationships between consulting firms and associations can be ‘subtle’, but the bigger issue to me is specifically about the proprietary data schema being touted as a standard when it’s in fact developed by the non-profit, licensed by the same consulting company, spec’d in by association members (likely unknowingly about these issues), and controlled (and vigorously defended legally) by the consulting company who also uses it as a competitive weapon to fight competitors in public bid disputes. This not only casts a pall on the provider and the association, but I also feel bad for BidSync folks and their customers who don’t want to have this sort of thing distracting them from adding value to their customers and constituents.
OK, I need to go to my day job!
Kelly Barner
April 21, 2015
Jon, to answer the question in your comment above, I don’t know that what you’ve uncovered really hurts users of the combined Periscope, BidSync, NIGP debacle/mess. Not in the short term anyway. I don’t know if there are any major downsides for those agencies/companies in the short term, but there sure will be in the long term.
The best available solution – or the supply partner you put in place – is to a certain extent limited by the quality of the next best alternative. Somewhat like a BATNA, which is the road you plan to take if you are unable to come to an agreement in a negotiation, your SBAS or ‘second best available solution’ (yes, I completely just made that up. Do not both Googling it…) keeps the suppler that won this time working hard so that they can win again next time.
If Periscope Holdings can revoke a vendor’s access to the NIGP code for losing eProcurement business to them, they do great harm to that vendor’s value proposition to the public sector. Since solution providers are constantly performing cost/benefit analyses for each sector in which they might make a business development effort, this would have to be taken into account. Having a competitor own the standard taxonomy (and wield it like a weapon) makes it less promising to make other investments to meet public sector requirements. And the end of the day, the net net is that there will be less solutions that serve as qualified alternatives to Periscope/BidSync for the public sector. P/BS will become relatively stronger as a result: in the influence they hold, in how viable it is to switch, and in how much they charge.
If procurement professionals – whether public or private sector – understand anything, it is that more qualified alternative solutions always results in a better final agreement. Anything that artificially thins that field, such as Periscope/BisSync withholding or withdrawing vendor access to the NIGP taxonomy, diminishes the number of alternatives and hurts the long term health of the solutions serving the public sector.
Current and potential customers should be incredibly wary, but will only have reason to if they are looking at the long term health, stability, and diversity of the solution vendors that market to them. That being said, the long term doesn’t have to be very long – no longer than a standard contract in fact. If each win by a competing vendor causes Periscope/BidSync to withdraw the NIGP code, those chickens will come home to roost the next time public sector agencies and organizations are looking to renegotiate their solution agreement.
Pierre Mitchell
April 21, 2015
Well said Kelly.