Who is more vulnerable to FOMO: procurement practitioners or ProcureTech solution providers?

I have created a poll in the Purchasing & Global Supply Chain Professionals Group. You can access it via the following link.

The question is: When it comes to AI, who is more vulnerable to FOMO: procurement practitioners or ProcureTech solution providers?

So far, based on the first three Generative AI models correlated within the RAM assessment framework, here is what I am seeing. Please note, I am gathering more data to put through RAM, so this is research in progress, which is why I created the poll:

MODEL #1

ProcureTech solution providers are more vulnerable to FOMO in 2025 due to existential market pressures (25% failure risk, consolidation), rapid innovation cycles (e.g., GenAI, XGBoost), and VC expectations, per Procurement Insights and ProcureTech100. Procurement practitioners feel FOMO from digitalization (70% target) and ESG/regulatory demands, but budgets and ROI focus temper urgency, per PwC. Providers’ FOMO (80-90%) exceeds practitioners’ (50-60%) by an estimated 20-30%, reflecting survival-driven innovation vs. cautious adoption. Providers fear missing AI orchestration (e.g., ORO Labs), while practitioners fear competitive lag but prioritize proven tools (e.g., Metaprise). This gap shapes 2025’s procurement landscape, with providers racing to innovate and practitioners selectively digitizing.

MODEL #2

Percentage Difference in FOMO Susceptibility

While exact percentages can vary, studies suggest:​

• Procurement Practitioners: Approximately 48% have invested in technology due to FOMO. ​ Supply Chain Dive
• ProcureTech Providers: Although specific figures are scarce, industry observations indicate a higher susceptibility, potentially exceeding 60%, driven by market pressures and the race to innovate.​

This suggests a 12% or greater difference in FOMO-driven behavior, with solution providers being more prone.

MODEL #3

Percentage Difference in FOMO

• ProcureTech Solution Providers:
  • Up to 80–88% are driven by FOMO, as indicated by the high failure rate of initiatives and the relentless push for innovation and differentiation4.
• Procurement Practitioners:
  • 48% admit FOMO drives tech investment decisions, based on a survey of procurement leaders3.

Percentage Difference:80%−48%=32%80%−48%=32%

So, ProcureTech solution providers are 32 percentage points more vulnerable to FOMO than procurement practitioners.

Summary Table

Group	FOMO Vulnerability (%)	Key Drivers
ProcureTech Solution Providers	80–88	Market hype, innovation pressure, M&A, high failure rate
Procurement Practitioners	48	Disruption, peer pressure, practical skepticism

In summary:
ProcureTech solution providers are significantly more vulnerable to FOMO than procurement practitioners, mainly due to market dynamics, hype cycles, and the need to stay relevant in a rapidly evolving industry. The percentage difference in FOMO vulnerability is about 32 percentage points, with providers feeling the pressure most acutely.

Chasing Versus Solving Problems

I wrote “Are you chasing solutions or solving problems?” in 2023. It is worth reading again in 2025.

Question: Is selling or buying out of fear a good thing?

Why Selling or Buying Out of Fear Is Generally Not a Good Thing

1. Suboptimal Decision-Making:
   • Procurement Practitioners:
     • Issue: FOMO-driven buying often leads to adopting unvetted technologies without aligning with organizational needs. For example, rushing to implement GenAI tools (e.g., Metaprise’s loopback, TealBook’s data brain) due to peer hype (per ProcureTech Signals, 2024) risks complex integrations and low user adoption, per Barner’s UX focus (Art of Procurement, 2023).
     • Evidence: PwC’s 2024 Digital Procurement Survey notes 70% of teams target digitalization, but ProcureTech Catch-22 (needing ROI to justify budgets) means hasty purchases often fail to deliver, per Kodiak Hub. Pure Procurement (2024) highlights “paralysis by analysis” from 400-600 solutions, increasing regret risks.
     • Impact: Misaligned tools waste €1.2M annual budgets, per PwC, and erode stakeholder trust.
   • ProcureTech Providers:
     • Issue: Selling out of fear (e.g., chasing AI orchestration trends like ORO Labs’ acquisitions) leads to overpromising features or speculative ventures. Procurement Insights (2024) warns 25% of AI providers may fail by 2025 due to unsustainable innovation.
     • Evidence: Providers like Akirolabs risk diluting value by pivoting to unproven GenAI, per ProcureTech100, driven by VC pressure and Spend Matters’ Future 5 hype.
     • Impact: Failed solutions damage credibility and market share, per Lamoureux’s cost-control focus, as customers reject overhyped tools, per Tipalti (Spend Matters, 2025).
2. Wasted Resources and Opportunity Costs:
   • Practitioners:
     • Issue: Fear-driven purchases divert resources from proven solutions (e.g., Metaprise’s 20% savings, 80% error reduction) to trendy but untested tools, per Procurement Insights (April 2025). Procurementsoftware.site (2022) notes feature-rich platforms require months of training, draining time and budgets.
     • Evidence: Prewave (2025) cites rushed ESG tech adoption due to EU regulations (CSDDD, CSRD), but poor integration leads to compliance gaps, per Lapierre’s data quality focus.
     • Impact: Missed opportunities to optimize existing systems (e.g., ERP with Joule-Metaprise hybrid, April 13, 2025) reduce ROI, per Barner’s value-driven approach.
   • Providers:
     • Issue: Fear of obsolescence (e.g., missing XGBoost/DBSCAN advancements, per prior response) pushes R&D into unprofitable areas, per Procurement Insights. Pure Procurement notes consolidation (e.g., ORO-ProcureTech) forces smaller players to overspend on marketing.
     • Evidence: Lance Younger (ProcureTech) warns providers risk funding cliffs by chasing trends, per, neglecting core competencies like TealBook’s supplier profiles.
     • Impact: Diverted funds weaken sustainable innovation, per Lamoureux’s S2P expertise, risking 25% failure rate.
3. Erosion of Strategic Focus:
   • Practitioners:
     • Issue: FOMO shifts focus from long-term goals (e.g., O2C compliance) to short-term trends (e.g., GenAI hype at ProcureTECH’25), per ProcureTech Signals. This misaligns with Proxima’s Supply Chain Barometer (96% CEO focus on strategic tech).
     • Evidence: Increasing emphasis is placed on governance for tools like Metaprise, but fear-driven buys bypass due diligence, leading to siloed tech stacks, per Kodiak Hub.
     • Impact: Strategic misalignment undermines agility, per Lapierre’s 85% agility priority (TealBook, 2021), and delays ESG progress.
   • Providers:
     • Issue: Selling to exploit FOMO (e.g., marketing AI orchestration without maturity) dilutes customer-centric innovation, per ProcureTech100. Providers risk becoming feature bloaters, per Tipalti.
     • Evidence: Certa’s rush to supplier lifecycle tools mirrors Aera’s decision intelligence pivot, but lacks depth, per, driven by Founders’ Circle hype.
     • Impact: Loss of differentiation weakens market position, per Younger, unlike TealBook’s focused data brain.
4. Increased Risk of Failure:
   • Practitioners:
     • Issue: Hasty adoption increases implementation failures, with 50-70% failure rates for unaligned tech, per Gartner (2018, cited in Metaprise). Pure Procurement notes poor change management exacerbates risks.
     • Evidence: Procurementsoftware.site (2022) cites cultural resistance and training gaps as barriers, amplifying FOMO-driven flops, per Barner’s UX concerns.
     • Impact: Failed implementations damage credibility and budgets, per Mitchell’s resilience focus.
   • Providers:
     • Issue: Fear-driven development risks unstable solutions, with 25% of AI providers projected to fail by 2025, per Procurement Insights. Overpromising (e.g., Akirolabs’ GenAI) leads to customer churn.
     • Evidence: Spend Matters’ Future 5 highlights unsustainable pivots as providers stretch beyond core strengths, per Lamoureux.
     • Impact: Market exit or acquisition (e.g., ORO-ProcureTech) results, per Pure Procurement.

Why Negative Consequences Outweigh Benefits

• Long-Term vs. Short-Term: Fear-driven actions may yield short-term gains (e.g., compliance, funding), but long-term risks (e.g., failed implementations, market exit) dominate, per Procurement Insights. Mitchell and Lamoureux emphasize strategic alignment over hype.
• Resource Allocation: Both groups waste time, budget, and credibility on misaligned solutions, per Kodiak Hub. Pure Procurement notes 400-600 solutions amplify bad choices.
• Market Dynamics: 2025’s consolidation (e.g., ORO-ProcureTech) and 25% provider failure risk punish fear-driven overreach, per. Practitioners’ budget constraints (per Tipalti) and providers’ VC pressure (per ProcureTech100) exacerbate risks.
• Alignment with Metaprise: Metaprise’s success (20% savings, 80% error reduction) stems from deliberate design, not FOMO, per Procurement Insights (April 2025). Fear-driven adoption risks undermining its human-AI synergy, per Barner and Lapierre.

Critical Perspective

• Establishment Narrative: Industry sources (e.g., PwC, ProcureTech100) may overstate FOMO’s benefits to drive sales or adoption, per Procurement Insights’ AI bubble warning. Providers exploit practitioners’ FOMO with hyped GenAI, risking distrust, per Tipalti.
• Balanced View: While fear can kickstart transformation (e.g., Prewave’s compliance tools), data-driven decisions (e.g., Metaprise’s loopback, TealBook’s profiles) outperform, per Lamoureux’s ROI focus. Barner’s practitioner lens prioritizes fit over fear.

Conclusion

Selling or buying out of fear, such as FOMO, is generally not a good thing for procurement practitioners or ProcureTech solution providers in 2025, as it leads to suboptimal decisions, wasted resources, strategic misalignment, and higher failure risks (e.g., 50-70% for practitioners, 25% for providers), per Procurement Insights and PwC. Per Pure Procurement, practitioners risk misaligned tech (e.g., unvetted GenAI) due to hype and regulatory pressure, while providers risk obsolescence or overhype in a crowded market (400-600 solutions).

Limited upsides include spurring urgent action (e.g., compliance for practitioners, funding for providers) or competitive positioning, but these require strategic fit, per Lapierre and Barner. The Metaprise model (20% savings, 80% error reduction) and ORO Labs’ success (70-80%) show that deliberate adoption trumps fear.

Negative consequences outweigh benefits, as fear sacrifices long-term value for short-term gains, per Lamoureux’s cost-control and Tipalti’s warnings. Practitioners and providers should prioritize ROI, user fit, and data-driven strategies to avoid FOMO’s pitfalls.

Does the above answer explain why there is such a high generational ProcureTech initiative failure rate?

30