What is the difference between ProcureTech sales and marketing content and the procurement industry experts’ and analysts’ assessment of ProcureTech?
It seems like a reasonable question. However, over the past decades, layers of complexity have muddied the waters of a clear and concise answer. At no other time has the above-referenced complexity been more prevalent and evident than in today’s AI-hyped world.
In my previous post, “What is not being said about Agentic AI? ” I focused on the apparent disconnect between what ProcureTech solution providers are saying about AI and what industry leaders are saying. In raising this difference, I do not suggest anyone deliberately attempts to mislead. However, there is a noticeable chasm between what AI, Generative AI, or Agentic AI can and cannot do.
Hopefully, today’s post will help to bridge that chasm and achieve a more balanced understanding of the roles and objectives of sales, marketing, industry experts, and analysts.
Who Said It (Sales & Marketing or Industry Expert and Analyst):
“Jon – you are asking the wrong questions. Procurement will not achieve its ambition or potential without digitalisation. For every single company and person that is championing digitalisation either personally or as part of a team I believe that we should all be advocating for and helping them to succeed rather than speculating on their failure.
It is your and our collective responsibility to change the (wrong) narrative and focus on accelerating the positive. Time is short.“
So, who said it? ProcureTech sales & marketing or procurement industry expert and analyst?
Source: ProcureTech CEO Younger stresses we must change the negative narrative and focus on accelerating the positive. – Procurement Insights, November 9th,2024
Not What, But When
Given the recent news that ORO Labs acquired Lance Younger’s ProcureTech 100 company on March 18, 2025, it would be fair to suggest that Lance’s words are well within the enthusiastic boundaries of a sales & marketing narrative.
I am not alone in my concern that Lance made the above statement this past November 2024, when the general view was that ProcureTech 100 was an independent expert and analyst source for many in the procurement industry.
In all fairness, as the table below demonstrates, ProcureTech 100 was not established to be an independent knowledge source like Gartner or other industry analyst firms.
Subscription-driven, vendor-neutral (in principle)
Evaluation Transparency
Limited methodology disclosed publicly
Detailed MQ/Wave criteria provided
Perception by Practitioners
Inspirational and innovation-oriented
Analytical, risk-focused, and conservative
Bias Risk
Medium – selection based on innovation appeal
Low to medium – bias debated but generally rigorous
ProcureTech 100’s primary role was ecosystem-building and digital innovation promotion, not third-party critical evaluation. In short, Lance’s company was a curator and promoter of technology, and in that light, maybe we should cut him a little slack regarding his Rah Rah comment in November.
That said, based on my many years of experience in and covering the high-tech and procurement industries, the above table assessment makes distinguishing between ProcureTech 100 and, say, Gartner’s expressed focus somewhat blurred, bordering on opaque.
The underlying question, which is most important for breaking the generational cycle of ProcureTech implementation failures, is establishing a clear-cut, definable separation of the roles between solution providers (sales & marketing) and the unbiased assessment of industry experts and analysts.
By the way, one should not assume that asking the tough questions about ProcureTech’s effectiveness demonstrates a lack of enthusiasm or belief in the possibilities of what AI can achieve in our industry. I personally love technology. However, that doesn’t mean closing my eyes to practitioner organizations’ challenges in realizing that promise.
The above being said, here is what the clearly defined roles of sales & marketing and independent expert and analyst focus should be:
Aspect
ProcureTech Solution Providers
Industry Experts & Analysts
Job Impact
Downplayed; focus on augmentation
Explicit concern about displacement
Ethics & Bias
Rarely addressed in depth
Central concern; call for governance
Security
Not a primary focus in public commentary
Highlighted as a major risk
Data Quality
Stressed as operational prerequisite
Framed as a critical risk for bias/errors
Transparency
Limited discussion
Urged as essential for trust and safety
Vendor Lock-In
Not discussed
Seen as a real risk with proprietary tools
Overall Tone
Optimistic, benefit-driven
Balanced, sometimes cautionary
Assessment Of The Above Roles
ProcureTech solution providers tend to spotlight Agentic AI’s operational benefits, framing downsides as manageable implementation challenges.
In contrast, procurement industry experts and analysts adopt a broader, more critical lens—raising alarms about ethical, workforce, security, and governance risks that providers often understate or omit.
This divergence highlights the importance for procurement leaders to look beyond vendor marketing and engage with independent analysis when assessing Agentic AI’s true risks and rewards.
The Big Takeaway: About one-third (34%) of C-suite leaders have openly acknowledged that AI adoption at their organization has been a major disappointment, and 68% say AI adoption has caused division within their company. These figures reflect more frustration with implementation challenges and internal alignment than fundamental skepticism about AI’s value.
Over the years, I have often stressed that the ProcureTech initiative failure rate has little to do with the technology. In fact, the technology and its promise are incredible, as demonstrated by my DND case study.
From my perspective, the initiative failure rate is due to misaligned marketing, sales overpromising, and ultimately pushing products rather than actually solving problems. These three missteps are the one constant that has run through four to five decades of high implementation failure, and these failures will continue until we start using an Agent-based development and implementation model.
*ProcureTech solution provider skepticism is inferred from market pressures and failure rates rather than direct survey data.
MODEL 2
Source/Organization
Percentage Skeptical
Risks Associated with AI
Pew Research Center (2024)
55% of AI experts
– Lack of trust in responsible AI development (biased algorithms, misuse in hiring/healthcare). – Insufficient regulation (57% demand stronger oversight). – Existential threats (equated to pandemics/nuclear war).
YouGov (March 2025)
44% of professionals (47% societal concerns)
– Societal impact (misinformation, deepfakes, 30% reputational risk). – Job displacement (28% fear role reduction). – Ethical concerns (discrimination, biases).
Salesforce (2024)
40% of non-users, 54% distrust data
– Lack of familiarity (40%), distrust in training data (54%). – Poor outcomes (56% struggle with results). – Integration challenges with existing systems.
Procurement Insights 
How ProcureTech Solution Provider Commentary on Agentic AI Downsides Differs from Procurement Industry Experts and Analysts
Posted on April 21, 2025
0
What is the difference between ProcureTech sales and marketing content and the procurement industry experts’ and analysts’ assessment of ProcureTech?
It seems like a reasonable question. However, over the past decades, layers of complexity have muddied the waters of a clear and concise answer. At no other time has the above-referenced complexity been more prevalent and evident than in today’s AI-hyped world.
In my previous post, “What is not being said about Agentic AI? ” I focused on the apparent disconnect between what ProcureTech solution providers are saying about AI and what industry leaders are saying. In raising this difference, I do not suggest anyone deliberately attempts to mislead. However, there is a noticeable chasm between what AI, Generative AI, or Agentic AI can and cannot do.
Hopefully, today’s post will help to bridge that chasm and achieve a more balanced understanding of the roles and objectives of sales, marketing, industry experts, and analysts.
Who Said It (Sales & Marketing or Industry Expert and Analyst):
“Jon – you are asking the wrong questions. Procurement will not achieve its ambition or potential without digitalisation. For every single company and person that is championing digitalisation either personally or as part of a team I believe that we should all be advocating for and helping them to succeed rather than speculating on their failure.
It is your and our collective responsibility to change the (wrong) narrative and focus on accelerating the positive. Time is short.“
So, who said it? ProcureTech sales & marketing or procurement industry expert and analyst?
Source: ProcureTech CEO Younger stresses we must change the negative narrative and focus on accelerating the positive. – Procurement Insights, November 9th,2024
Not What, But When
Given the recent news that ORO Labs acquired Lance Younger’s ProcureTech 100 company on March 18, 2025, it would be fair to suggest that Lance’s words are well within the enthusiastic boundaries of a sales & marketing narrative.
I am not alone in my concern that Lance made the above statement this past November 2024, when the general view was that ProcureTech 100 was an independent expert and analyst source for many in the procurement industry.
In all fairness, as the table below demonstrates, ProcureTech 100 was not established to be an independent knowledge source like Gartner or other industry analyst firms.
ProcureTech 100’s primary role was ecosystem-building and digital innovation promotion, not third-party critical evaluation. In short, Lance’s company was a curator and promoter of technology, and in that light, maybe we should cut him a little slack regarding his Rah Rah comment in November.
That said, based on my many years of experience in and covering the high-tech and procurement industries, the above table assessment makes distinguishing between ProcureTech 100 and, say, Gartner’s expressed focus somewhat blurred, bordering on opaque.
The underlying question, which is most important for breaking the generational cycle of ProcureTech implementation failures, is establishing a clear-cut, definable separation of the roles between solution providers (sales & marketing) and the unbiased assessment of industry experts and analysts.
By the way, one should not assume that asking the tough questions about ProcureTech’s effectiveness demonstrates a lack of enthusiasm or belief in the possibilities of what AI can achieve in our industry. I personally love technology. However, that doesn’t mean closing my eyes to practitioner organizations’ challenges in realizing that promise.
The above being said, here is what the clearly defined roles of sales & marketing and independent expert and analyst focus should be:
Assessment Of The Above Roles
The Big Takeaway: About one-third (34%) of C-suite leaders have openly acknowledged that AI adoption at their organization has been a major disappointment, and 68% say AI adoption has caused division within their company. These figures reflect more frustration with implementation challenges and internal alignment than fundamental skepticism about AI’s value.
Over the years, I have often stressed that the ProcureTech initiative failure rate has little to do with the technology. In fact, the technology and its promise are incredible, as demonstrated by my DND case study.
From my perspective, the initiative failure rate is due to misaligned marketing, sales overpromising, and ultimately pushing products rather than actually solving problems. These three missteps are the one constant that has run through four to five decades of high implementation failure, and these failures will continue until we start using an Agent-based development and implementation model.
BONUS TABLE ON LEVEL OF SKEPTICISM
MODEL 1
*ProcureTech solution provider skepticism is inferred from market pressures and failure rates rather than direct survey data.
MODEL 2
30
Share this:
Related