“Technical debt is a concept in software development and IT that refers to the accumulated cost of additional work caused by choosing short-term solutions or quick fixes instead of more robust, long-term approaches. These shortcuts may save time or resources initially but can lead to problems down the line, requiring extra effort to address and maintain the system.” (Source: ChatGPT)
- No one ever got fired for buying IBM.
- Bolt-on solutions are reflective of a “bad strategy.”
When I built my algorithm-based Procure-Tech solution in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I approached Oracle about possibly “building a bridge” between our two platforms. Oracle’s response was succinctly dismissive: We don’t get out of bed in the morning for any project less than $1 million (about $1.7 million in today’s dollars).
At the time, what I had built and what later SaaS iterations came to be called were bolt-on solutions. It was a negative term describing an outsider application: an unwanted appendage to the main suite leading to increased risks and financial loss. With a good understanding of the challenges with integration back then, I can’t help but think that the feared risks and economic loss (licensing and maintenance fees) were more of a concern for the ERP solution providers than they were on the part of practitioners.
“Bolt-on ProcureTech solutions—standalone tools added to existing procurement systems—were often seen as a bad strategy for several reasons, largely tied to inefficiencies, scalability issues, and operational misalignment.” – (Source: ChatGPT)
The “Real” Misalignment
Today, we are dealing with a highly complex and convoluted mish-mash of overcrowded solution maps, sensational hype curves, and 80% generational initiative failure rates.
In talking with senior procurement executives from very large companies, I have found that their belief in the effectiveness, e.g., practical existence, of end-to-end ProcureTech solutions or monolithic one-size-fits-all centralized platforms is low or nonexistent.
As outlined in my earlier post, “Why Gartner’s Data Fabric Graphic Puts the Horse Before the Cart,” expecting technology to fix and define your process overcomplicates and undermines your initiative effectiveness and ultimate success. It will also unnecessarily cost you a great deal of money, which is the actual definition of technology debt, and that’s what I call “real” efficiency, scalability, and operational misalignment.
Today’s Takeaway
Never lead with an equation-based development and implementation technology-first approach. Instead, utilize a problem-solving agent-based model within a Metaprise framework that accommodates the modular success of advanced but simple solutions that deliver quick results and sustainable long-term stability.
30
Procurement Insights
Do concerns about technical debt stifle innovation and initiative success?
Posted on December 17, 2024
0
“Technical debt is a concept in software development and IT that refers to the accumulated cost of additional work caused by choosing short-term solutions or quick fixes instead of more robust, long-term approaches. These shortcuts may save time or resources initially but can lead to problems down the line, requiring extra effort to address and maintain the system.” (Source: ChatGPT)
When I built my algorithm-based Procure-Tech solution in the late 1990s and early 2000s, I approached Oracle about possibly “building a bridge” between our two platforms. Oracle’s response was succinctly dismissive: We don’t get out of bed in the morning for any project less than $1 million (about $1.7 million in today’s dollars).
At the time, what I had built and what later SaaS iterations came to be called were bolt-on solutions. It was a negative term describing an outsider application: an unwanted appendage to the main suite leading to increased risks and financial loss. With a good understanding of the challenges with integration back then, I can’t help but think that the feared risks and economic loss (licensing and maintenance fees) were more of a concern for the ERP solution providers than they were on the part of practitioners.
“Bolt-on ProcureTech solutions—standalone tools added to existing procurement systems—were often seen as a bad strategy for several reasons, largely tied to inefficiencies, scalability issues, and operational misalignment.” – (Source: ChatGPT)
The “Real” Misalignment
Today, we are dealing with a highly complex and convoluted mish-mash of overcrowded solution maps, sensational hype curves, and 80% generational initiative failure rates.
In talking with senior procurement executives from very large companies, I have found that their belief in the effectiveness, e.g., practical existence, of end-to-end ProcureTech solutions or monolithic one-size-fits-all centralized platforms is low or nonexistent.
As outlined in my earlier post, “Why Gartner’s Data Fabric Graphic Puts the Horse Before the Cart,” expecting technology to fix and define your process overcomplicates and undermines your initiative effectiveness and ultimate success. It will also unnecessarily cost you a great deal of money, which is the actual definition of technology debt, and that’s what I call “real” efficiency, scalability, and operational misalignment.
Today’s Takeaway
Never lead with an equation-based development and implementation technology-first approach. Instead, utilize a problem-solving agent-based model within a Metaprise framework that accommodates the modular success of advanced but simple solutions that deliver quick results and sustainable long-term stability.
30
Share this:
Related