When it comes to ProcureTech success, how can you be both right and wrong at the same time?

Responding to my Triple Play Day post on LinkedIn, Bill DeMartinio raised a few interesting points that are hard to argue with, because he was right!

Rather than going into a lengthy preamble, I will share the screenshots of the comments below and then provide further details in today’s post.

TODAY’S POST

While the benefits of open, universal “migration-ready frameworks” are clear, overcoming commercial, organizational, and systemic barriers will require active leadership from both vendors and practitioners, as well as greater industry collaboration and the creation of neutral stewardship models.

Here is a high-level outline of the barriers:

---

Summary Table

1. Commercial Interests & Competition

• Proprietary Advantage: Vendors and consulting firms often treat frameworks and methodologies as intellectual property or competitive differentiators, restricting open access to maintain market advantage.
• Monetization: Frameworks are sometimes packaged as premium offerings (advisory services, certification, paid platforms), making universal free sharing less attractive to solution providers.

2. Lack of Standardization

• Fragmented Landscape: Procurement processes, data models, compliance requirements, and tech stacks differ widely across industries, regions, and company sizes, making it challenging to design a one-size-fits-all migration pathway.
• Evolving Technology: Rapid advances in AI, integration standards, and digital platforms mean frameworks quickly become outdated, requiring constant refresh and redesign.

3. Resource Constraints

• Content Creation and Maintenance: Developing robust, migration-ready frameworks (with guides, benchmarks, case studies, and templates) demands significant ongoing resources, which may be hard to justify without direct commercial incentive.
• Limited Collaboration: Open universal sharing requires industry-wide collaboration—and many firms lack the infrastructure or willingness to contribute.

4. Cultural and Organizational Barriers

• Reluctance to Share Failures and Lessons Learned: Organizations may be hesitant to openly discuss barriers, failures, and problem-solving experiences, slowing collective learning.
• Change Resistance: Colleagues, leaders, or entire organizations may resist adopting “external” frameworks, preferring internally developed strategies (even when less effective).

5. Legal and Regulatory Risk

• Confidentiality Requirements: Frameworks may incorporate sensitive business data, partner insights, or intellectual property that cannot be publicly disclosed.

6. Absence of Industry-Led Stewardship

• No Central Governing Body: There has been limited establishment of non-profit, neutral, international bodies to curate, disseminate, and update universal frameworks for procurement transformation—unlike standards in finance or IT.

30

BONUS COVERAGE (COLLABORATION GRAPH)

Summary

• The central message: Achieving the full promise of migration-ready frameworks demands coordinated leadership from both practitioners (clients, users, business leaders) and multiple vendors—not just isolated effort.
• Collaboration, openness, and neutral governance structures are visually shown as essential for breaking down barriers and enabling widespread framework adoption.

Suggested Additional Reading: Practitioner-Led Versus Solution Provider-Led Modular Partnerships