Notable Insights:
ApolloRise + ORO Labs is solid on supplier collaboration and architecture but slightly weaker on governance and compliance.
ORO Labs + ConvergentIS remains the top performer in ERP compliance and composable architecture.
Focal Point + ORO Labs maintains the strongest governance strength and balanced performance across all dimensions.
AdaptOne + Focal Point performs well in governance and compliance but lags in stakeholder agility and supplier collaboration.
To better explain the above, a brief history lesson is in order – and, yes, in its own way, history often finds a way to repeat itself with a few updated twists.
BACK TO 2009 – MARLIN ACQUIRES EMPTORIS
Back in January 2009, I wrote the following article: Marlin Equity Partners Invests in Emptoris (Beyond the Headlines Commentary). Here is an excerpt from that 2009 article:
This plug and play modularity, which is also reflective of the current Metaprise operational platform empowers each entity such as Emptoris to grow and prosper within their specific area of expertise while simultaneously enhancing the overall effectiveness and profitability of the Marlin “vendor enterprise or portofolio” as a whole. This again is in sharp contrast to the sequentially horizontal structure implemented by traditional enterprise software companies, who attempt to assimilate the solutions of acquired entities into their existing application framework. In essence, where the Marlin structure delivers consistent value to the end user through a collaborative effort, an Oracle will look to extract the perceived missing pieces of their main product offering from the target company, only to discard what is seen as being the non-compliant elements of both the solution and the organization itself.
BACK TO THE FUTURE 2025
The 2009 Marlin Equity Partners-Emptoris investment story and the 2025 ORO Labs-ProcureTech 100 acquisition share striking parallels in strategic vision, growth acceleration, and industry consolidation, though with distinct contextual differences. Below is a detailed analysis:
Impact on the Marlin-Emptoris Narrative
The 2009 article reinforces that Marlin’s investment was:
- Strategically Transformative: Not merely financial but a partnership aligned with Emptoris CEO Avner Schneur’s vision for “world-class solutions” and market expansion.
- Catalyst for Aggressive Growth: Marlin committed capital for organic expansion and acquisitions (e.g., Click Commerce’s CSM division in 2009), enabling Emptoris to broaden its solution suite and customer base.
- Consolidation-Driven: Positioned Emptoris as a consolidator in procurement tech, directly competing with ERP giants—a strategy culminating in IBM’s acquisition (2011).
Parallels to ORO Labs’ Acquisition of ProcureTech 100
ORO Labs’ 2025 move mirrors Marlin-Emptoris in three key areas:
Critical Differences
- Market Context:
- 2009: Post-recession economy favored consolidation for survival.
- 2025: AI-driven procurement boom prioritizes agility and UX (ORO’s strength)[ProcureTech 100].
- Technology Focus:
Emptoris emphasized “robust supply/contract management”; ORO Labs targets AI orchestration and risk mitigation.
Why This Parallel Matters
- Validation of Playbook: ORO Labs replicates Marlin’s successful formula—using acquisitions to rapidly scale capabilities and attract strategic buyers.
- Risk Factor: Both faced integration challenges; Marlin’s acquisition of Click Commerce required merging teams/tech, similar to ORO’s task with ProcureTech 100.
- Endgame Potential: Like Emptoris→IBM, ORO Labs could become an acquisition target for cloud/ERP giants (e.g., Oracle, SAP) seeking next-gen procurement AI.
Conclusion
The Marlin-Emptoris case provides a proven blueprint for ORO Labs: strategic capital deployment + acquisitions can transform a specialist into a market leader, culminating in a premium exit. ORO’s acquisition of ProcureTech 100 is positioned to echo this trajectory, potentially achieving even greater impact due to AI’s exponential role in modern procurement.
WHAT EXACTLY IS ORO’S “ENDGAME?”
There are two specific statements above that should stand out to you:
- Endgame Potential: Like Emptoris→IBM, ORO Labs could become an acquisition target for cloud/ERP giants (e.g., Oracle, SAP) seeking next-gen procurement AI.
- The Marlin-Emptoris case provides a proven blueprint for ORO Labs: strategic capital deployment + acquisitions can transform a specialist into a market leader, culminating in a premium exit.
To understand the relevance of the two statements, you have to ask yourself this question:
How would the procurement world, for example, the success of the ProcureTech initiative and practitioner performance, have been better if Emptoris and others like it still existed and remained independent?
If Emptoris and similar best-of-breed procurement solution providers had remained independent rather than being acquired and ultimately sunsetted, the procurement world—especially the ProcureTech ecosystem and practitioner community—would likely have seen greater innovation, more tailored solutions, and improved practitioner performance. Here’s how and why:
1. Innovation and Solution Diversity
- Independent specialists drive innovation: When Emptoris was independent, it consistently ranked as a leader in sourcing and procurement innovation, pushing the boundaries of what procurement technology could do. Acquisitions by large enterprise vendors often lead to integration priorities and resource reallocation, stifling the pace of innovation and reducing the focus on niche or emerging practitioner needs.
- Feature-rich alternatives: The disappearance of independent players like Emptoris and SuccessFactors reduced the diversity of available solutions, leaving practitioners with fewer choices and less leverage to demand new features or improvements tailored to their unique requirements.
2. Practitioner Leverage and Negotiation Power
- Stronger bargaining position: With more independent providers, procurement leaders had greater negotiating power with major vendors like SAP and IBM. This competition forced all players to keep improving their offerings and pricing.
- Avoiding vendor lock-in: The reduction in independent options led to increased dependence on a handful of mega-vendors. This consolidation often results in less favorable contract terms, higher switching costs, and less responsiveness to customer concerns.
3. Implementation Success and Client Fit
- Better client-solution fit: Independent providers tend to be more selective and focused on client success, onboarding organizations where their solution is a strong fit. After acquisition, revenue pressures and mass-market strategies can lead to providers taking on clients with a lower chance of success, increasing the risk of failed implementations and practitioner dissatisfaction.
- Tailored support and innovation: Specialists typically offer more customized support and are more agile in adapting their roadmap to practitioner feedback, which is often lost in larger, consolidated organizations.
4. Practitioner Performance and Morale
- Higher satisfaction and expertise: Studies show that post-acquisition, there can be a temporary boost in resources and expertise, but over time, practitioner satisfaction with supplier systems declines as innovation slows and support becomes less personalized.
- Morale and cultural fit: The culture and morale of practitioner teams can suffer when their preferred, innovative tools are replaced by more generic, less nimble platforms following consolidation.
5. Risks of Over-Consolidation
- Reduced product diversity and innovation: Consolidation leads to fewer unique solutions, less competitive pricing, and a risk of stagnation in product development.
- Single point of failure: Relying on a limited number of mega-vendors increases systemic risk if those vendors discontinue products or shift strategic priorities.
Summary Table: Impact of Continued Independence
Conclusion
Had Emptoris and similar providers remained independent, the procurement technology landscape would likely be more innovative, competitive, and responsive to practitioner needs. Practitioners would have enjoyed greater leverage, more tailored solutions, and higher satisfaction—ultimately driving better ProcureTech initiative outcomes and procurement performance. The loss of these independent innovators has left a gap that, while partially filled by new entrants, has not fully restored the diversity and dynamism of the earlier ecosystem.
NOW, LET’S GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF TODAY’S POST
Do you know why there is a consistently high generational failure rate of ProcureTech initiatives, entering its fifth consecutive decade?
It is a repeatable cycle because we, as procurement professionals, haven’t recognized that the number one talent we should be developing is our self-sufficiency to ASSEMBLE “our own” end-to-end ProcureTech Solution Suite. This is one of the primary reasons I created the Hansen Fit Score.
If we don’t IKEA it ourselves, no matter how amazing the technology, we will be having this same discussion about the high initiative failure rate 10 to 15 years from now.
Now, take another look at the following chart through the lens of self-sufficiency, and then let’s start working with the many hidden in plain sight, and yes, even the known ProcureTech gems, to finally realize the digital promise.
30
ONE MORE THOUGHT
Here is an excerpt from the above-referenced March 19, 2025, ORO Acquisition of ProcureTech 100 Procurement Insights post:
- 40-plus into my high-tech and procurement career, I saw this coming per my November 9th, 2024 post – ProcureTech CEO Younger stresses we must change the negative narrative and focus on accelerating the positive.
- The only tangible outcome that matters is how this news will impact the high rate of ProcureTech initiative failures that have plagued our industry over the past many decades. What impact will it have on the 80% of initiative failures? Based on my November post and previously mentioned 40 years in the industry, this acquisition will not likely change a thing.
- Has anyone considered the possibility that ORO’s acquisition of ProcureTech has created a ProcureTech solution providers marketplace for ORO to tap into to strengthen its position as the next billion-dollar player? From a pure business and financial move, it is an inspired deal that is reminiscent of both the Microsoft and IBM marketplaces of the past. In short, ProcureTech 100 has always been an incubator. Don’t be surprised when ORO goes “grocery shopping” in its shiny new marketplace to boost its valuation.
- One final thought – Maybe now we – as practitioners, can finally focus on what really matters, stop following the big analyst firms and solution map creators, step up, and start doing our own homework when we look to partner with a solution provider partner.
MORE ON THE HANSEN FIT SCORE
How does the Hansen Fit Score improve practitioner-provider outcomes versus Gartner, Spend Matters, Deloitte, McKinsey, and G2?
How Do Hansen’s Metaprise, Agent-based, Strand Commonality models improve ProcureTech results, e.g., shorten the Hype to Realization timelines?
What technological advances drive Hansen’s Fit Score models to dominate procurement strategies
RAM 2025 Levels 1 and 2 Assess 10 ProcureTech Providers For Duke Energy
Explaining The Metaprise, Agent-based, and Strand Commonality Models To Data Scientists
Procurement Insights
Some Assembly Required, But It Beats Acquire And Assimilate (Or Why ORO Should Never Sell Itself To Oracle Or SAP)
Posted on June 27, 2025
0
Notable Insights:
ApolloRise + ORO Labs is solid on supplier collaboration and architecture but slightly weaker on governance and compliance.
ORO Labs + ConvergentIS remains the top performer in ERP compliance and composable architecture.
Focal Point + ORO Labs maintains the strongest governance strength and balanced performance across all dimensions.
AdaptOne + Focal Point performs well in governance and compliance but lags in stakeholder agility and supplier collaboration.
To better explain the above, a brief history lesson is in order – and, yes, in its own way, history often finds a way to repeat itself with a few updated twists.
BACK TO 2009 – MARLIN ACQUIRES EMPTORIS
Back in January 2009, I wrote the following article: Marlin Equity Partners Invests in Emptoris (Beyond the Headlines Commentary). Here is an excerpt from that 2009 article:
This plug and play modularity, which is also reflective of the current Metaprise operational platform empowers each entity such as Emptoris to grow and prosper within their specific area of expertise while simultaneously enhancing the overall effectiveness and profitability of the Marlin “vendor enterprise or portofolio” as a whole. This again is in sharp contrast to the sequentially horizontal structure implemented by traditional enterprise software companies, who attempt to assimilate the solutions of acquired entities into their existing application framework. In essence, where the Marlin structure delivers consistent value to the end user through a collaborative effort, an Oracle will look to extract the perceived missing pieces of their main product offering from the target company, only to discard what is seen as being the non-compliant elements of both the solution and the organization itself.
BACK TO THE FUTURE 2025
The 2009 Marlin Equity Partners-Emptoris investment story and the 2025 ORO Labs-ProcureTech 100 acquisition share striking parallels in strategic vision, growth acceleration, and industry consolidation, though with distinct contextual differences. Below is a detailed analysis:
Impact on the Marlin-Emptoris Narrative
The 2009 article reinforces that Marlin’s investment was:
Parallels to ORO Labs’ Acquisition of ProcureTech 100
ORO Labs’ 2025 move mirrors Marlin-Emptoris in three key areas:
Critical Differences
Emptoris emphasized “robust supply/contract management”; ORO Labs targets AI orchestration and risk mitigation.
Why This Parallel Matters
Conclusion
The Marlin-Emptoris case provides a proven blueprint for ORO Labs: strategic capital deployment + acquisitions can transform a specialist into a market leader, culminating in a premium exit. ORO’s acquisition of ProcureTech 100 is positioned to echo this trajectory, potentially achieving even greater impact due to AI’s exponential role in modern procurement.
WHAT EXACTLY IS ORO’S “ENDGAME?”
There are two specific statements above that should stand out to you:
To understand the relevance of the two statements, you have to ask yourself this question:
How would the procurement world, for example, the success of the ProcureTech initiative and practitioner performance, have been better if Emptoris and others like it still existed and remained independent?
If Emptoris and similar best-of-breed procurement solution providers had remained independent rather than being acquired and ultimately sunsetted, the procurement world—especially the ProcureTech ecosystem and practitioner community—would likely have seen greater innovation, more tailored solutions, and improved practitioner performance. Here’s how and why:
1. Innovation and Solution Diversity
2. Practitioner Leverage and Negotiation Power
3. Implementation Success and Client Fit
4. Practitioner Performance and Morale
5. Risks of Over-Consolidation
Summary Table: Impact of Continued Independence
Conclusion
Had Emptoris and similar providers remained independent, the procurement technology landscape would likely be more innovative, competitive, and responsive to practitioner needs. Practitioners would have enjoyed greater leverage, more tailored solutions, and higher satisfaction—ultimately driving better ProcureTech initiative outcomes and procurement performance. The loss of these independent innovators has left a gap that, while partially filled by new entrants, has not fully restored the diversity and dynamism of the earlier ecosystem.
NOW, LET’S GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF TODAY’S POST
Do you know why there is a consistently high generational failure rate of ProcureTech initiatives, entering its fifth consecutive decade?
It is a repeatable cycle because we, as procurement professionals, haven’t recognized that the number one talent we should be developing is our self-sufficiency to ASSEMBLE “our own” end-to-end ProcureTech Solution Suite. This is one of the primary reasons I created the Hansen Fit Score.
If we don’t IKEA it ourselves, no matter how amazing the technology, we will be having this same discussion about the high initiative failure rate 10 to 15 years from now.
Now, take another look at the following chart through the lens of self-sufficiency, and then let’s start working with the many hidden in plain sight, and yes, even the known ProcureTech gems, to finally realize the digital promise.
30
ONE MORE THOUGHT
Here is an excerpt from the above-referenced March 19, 2025, ORO Acquisition of ProcureTech 100 Procurement Insights post:
MORE ON THE HANSEN FIT SCORE
How does the Hansen Fit Score improve practitioner-provider outcomes versus Gartner, Spend Matters, Deloitte, McKinsey, and G2?
How Do Hansen’s Metaprise, Agent-based, Strand Commonality models improve ProcureTech results, e.g., shorten the Hype to Realization timelines?
What technological advances drive Hansen’s Fit Score models to dominate procurement strategies
RAM 2025 Levels 1 and 2 Assess 10 ProcureTech Providers For Duke Energy
Explaining The Metaprise, Agent-based, and Strand Commonality Models To Data Scientists
Share this:
Related