Over the weekend, I tend to let down what little hair I have left down and write for the pure pleasure of writing. Now, don’t misinterpret what I am saying because I have no less enthusiasm for weekday writing, which is reflected in the following statement from a service provider:
“Well, let me start off with just a couple of quick points first. Jon, again, we’ve really enjoyed having you support us this year, and we’ll definitely find a way to pull you in next year and help with webinars and everything else. You’ve been spectacular. We actually looked at your content, and it is more successful than Gartner’s content. I’ll pay you that compliment. So, we paid a lot of money for Gartner content, and you outperform Gartner.” – Scoutbee VP
However, on the weekend, my subject matter – while still focused on inspiring, thought-provoking dialogue, is less restrained for my loyal blog subscribers and weekend readers. In fact, sometimes, what I write here never sees the social media light of day. Other times, it does, and when that happens, I learn much more than I share from the resulting social dialogue.
Off-Mapping
This past Saturday – after the “bouncing tire” piece, I wrote another post titled “Why going “off-map” is the key to finding the best solution providers ( A Modern-Day Acres of Diamonds),” which I then shared on LinkedIn.
What I did not expect was the following dialogue:
Michael Lamoureux (HE/HIM) Fractional Chief Research Officer, Procurement/Supply Chain Expert, Optimization Guru, Solution Engineer, Technology Management, Due Diligence, Writer, Leader, Board Member, Scholar, Futurist, & “the doctor” (IEEESM, HKN)
Jon W. Hansen Well, while impossible to give precise numbers since companies are always starting up, merging, getting acquired, and shutting their doors in our space, statistically, if we look at the average number of logos on a module-quadrant map (about 20), and the average number of providers with that module (about 100, ranging from about 50 for true analytics to about 200 for some variant of SXM), for every provider “paying” to get that shiny dot, there are 4 going overlooked. And given that the map represents “average,” that says, statistically, 2 of those providers are going to be better.
Furthermore, maps should NEVER be used for solution selection (for the many, many reasons I’ve been continually putting forth over on SI, heck just search for any post with “analyst” in the title over the past year). A good map can be used to discover vendors with comparable solutions, and nothing more.
Jon W. Hansen Strategic Advisor/Analyst Specializing in Emerging AI Tech, Sales and Marketing (Procurement) Thinkers360 Top 50 Global Thought Leaders & Influencers on Procurement! (April 2021)
Michael Lamoureux, the first thought that came to my mind was the urgency with which we buy the dots on the map without realizing that many have paid a considerable sum to get the logo spot.
Before I sold my company in 2001, an analyst firm called Meta, eventually purchased by Gartner, approached me because of our tech and the successful results from our first big implementation.
During the meeting with my executive team, they said that we were definitely on the leading edge, and they wanted to “cover” us. I told them that sounded great.
Then, the shoe dropped – the Meta rep said terrific, let’s get started right away. Fantastic, I said, brimming with even more confidence than I already had; what’s the next step?
We will get you to sign a contract and then invoice you for $20,000, which is more than $36,000 in 2024 dollars.
How many other companies who had great tech didn’t make it to “Carnegie.”
A more disturbing question is how many providers did make it to Carnegie, but couldn’t carry a tune? The consistent 75% rate of initiative failure over the past couple of decades makes you wonder?
Ironically, it contributed to my decision to sell the company because it was a pay-to-play game, which meant you needed VC money.
Michael Lamoureux (He/Him) Fractional Chief Research Officer, Procurement/Supply Chain Expert, Optimization Guru, Solution Engineer, Technology Management, Due Diligence, Writer, Leader, Board Member, Scholar, Futurist, & “the doctor” (IEEESM, HKN)
Jon W. Hansen, it’s still definitely a pay-to-play game with most of these firms, as per my recent posts where dozens of smaller vendors I talked to this year (who keep asking “what’s the catch” when I say I want to cover them on SI) said they were being quoted between 50K and 70K for any sort of coverage; and most of the dots that made the maps at the big firms are paying an average of 150K or more to get there …
While Duncan Jones insists it is likely just a few bad apples, those bad apples were so rotten that many of these smaller firms steadfastly believed they couldn’t even brief an analyst if they didn’t pay up (as the rep wouldn’t let them) … it’s not just one firm … 4 firms got over 3 (sometimes very angry) mentions …
So yes, most of the smaller firms without big bank accounts aren’t making it (because they hired people who could build vs. people who could bullsh!t investors) …
and of those that did make it, yes, some of them can’t carry more than a tune or two (despite claiming to carry 20) …
My BIG Question
Is what Michael Lamoureaux saying true? Is Duncan Jones correct when he insists, “It is just a few bad apples?”
If it is true, is Last Week Tonight’s John Oliver’s assessment right, or is it simply a case of pandering for laughs?
The Only Statistic That Matters
When everything is said and done, there is often more said than done.
So, here is the only statistic that matters to me:
“Technology research firm Gartner, Inc. has estimated that 85% of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) projects fail to produce a return for the business. The reasons often cited for the high failure rate include poor scope definition, bad training data, organizational inertia, lack of process change, mission creep and insufficient experimentation.” – Forbes Magazine (January 2023)
30
Procurement Insights
Is This True?!?
Posted on June 17, 2024
0
Over the weekend, I tend to let down what little hair I have left down and write for the pure pleasure of writing. Now, don’t misinterpret what I am saying because I have no less enthusiasm for weekday writing, which is reflected in the following statement from a service provider:
“Well, let me start off with just a couple of quick points first. Jon, again, we’ve really enjoyed having you support us this year, and we’ll definitely find a way to pull you in next year and help with webinars and everything else. You’ve been spectacular. We actually looked at your content, and it is more successful than Gartner’s content. I’ll pay you that compliment. So, we paid a lot of money for Gartner content, and you outperform Gartner.” – Scoutbee VP
However, on the weekend, my subject matter – while still focused on inspiring, thought-provoking dialogue, is less restrained for my loyal blog subscribers and weekend readers. In fact, sometimes, what I write here never sees the social media light of day. Other times, it does, and when that happens, I learn much more than I share from the resulting social dialogue.
Off-Mapping
This past Saturday – after the “bouncing tire” piece, I wrote another post titled “Why going “off-map” is the key to finding the best solution providers ( A Modern-Day Acres of Diamonds),” which I then shared on LinkedIn.
What I did not expect was the following dialogue:
Michael Lamoureux (HE/HIM) Fractional Chief Research Officer, Procurement/Supply Chain Expert, Optimization Guru, Solution Engineer, Technology Management, Due Diligence, Writer, Leader, Board Member, Scholar, Futurist, & “the doctor” (IEEESM, HKN)
Jon W. Hansen Well, while impossible to give precise numbers since companies are always starting up, merging, getting acquired, and shutting their doors in our space, statistically, if we look at the average number of logos on a module-quadrant map (about 20), and the average number of providers with that module (about 100, ranging from about 50 for true analytics to about 200 for some variant of SXM), for every provider “paying” to get that shiny dot, there are 4 going overlooked. And given that the map represents “average,” that says, statistically, 2 of those providers are going to be better.
Furthermore, maps should NEVER be used for solution selection (for the many, many reasons I’ve been continually putting forth over on SI, heck just search for any post with “analyst” in the title over the past year). A good map can be used to discover vendors with comparable solutions, and nothing more.
Jon W. Hansen Strategic Advisor/Analyst Specializing in Emerging AI Tech, Sales and Marketing (Procurement) Thinkers360 Top 50 Global Thought Leaders & Influencers on Procurement! (April 2021)
Michael Lamoureux, the first thought that came to my mind was the urgency with which we buy the dots on the map without realizing that many have paid a considerable sum to get the logo spot.
Before I sold my company in 2001, an analyst firm called Meta, eventually purchased by Gartner, approached me because of our tech and the successful results from our first big implementation.
During the meeting with my executive team, they said that we were definitely on the leading edge, and they wanted to “cover” us. I told them that sounded great.
Then, the shoe dropped – the Meta rep said terrific, let’s get started right away. Fantastic, I said, brimming with even more confidence than I already had; what’s the next step?
We will get you to sign a contract and then invoice you for $20,000, which is more than $36,000 in 2024 dollars.
How many other companies who had great tech didn’t make it to “Carnegie.”
A more disturbing question is how many providers did make it to Carnegie, but couldn’t carry a tune? The consistent 75% rate of initiative failure over the past couple of decades makes you wonder?
Ironically, it contributed to my decision to sell the company because it was a pay-to-play game, which meant you needed VC money.
Michael Lamoureux (He/Him) Fractional Chief Research Officer, Procurement/Supply Chain Expert, Optimization Guru, Solution Engineer, Technology Management, Due Diligence, Writer, Leader, Board Member, Scholar, Futurist, & “the doctor” (IEEESM, HKN)
Jon W. Hansen, it’s still definitely a pay-to-play game with most of these firms, as per my recent posts where dozens of smaller vendors I talked to this year (who keep asking “what’s the catch” when I say I want to cover them on SI) said they were being quoted between 50K and 70K for any sort of coverage; and most of the dots that made the maps at the big firms are paying an average of 150K or more to get there …
While Duncan Jones insists it is likely just a few bad apples, those bad apples were so rotten that many of these smaller firms steadfastly believed they couldn’t even brief an analyst if they didn’t pay up (as the rep wouldn’t let them) … it’s not just one firm … 4 firms got over 3 (sometimes very angry) mentions …
So yes, most of the smaller firms without big bank accounts aren’t making it (because they hired people who could build vs. people who could bullsh!t investors) …
and of those that did make it, yes, some of them can’t carry more than a tune or two (despite claiming to carry 20) …
My BIG Question
Is what Michael Lamoureaux saying true? Is Duncan Jones correct when he insists, “It is just a few bad apples?”
If it is true, is Last Week Tonight’s John Oliver’s assessment right, or is it simply a case of pandering for laughs?
The Only Statistic That Matters
When everything is said and done, there is often more said than done.
So, here is the only statistic that matters to me:
“Technology research firm Gartner, Inc. has estimated that 85% of artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning (ML) projects fail to produce a return for the business. The reasons often cited for the high failure rate include poor scope definition, bad training data, organizational inertia, lack of process change, mission creep and insufficient experimentation.” – Forbes Magazine (January 2023)
30
Share this:
Related