EDITOR’S NOTE: Occassionally I will come across an article from the depths of the Procurement Insighst 2007 to 2025 Archives and test how well the content has held up since its initial publication. In today’s post, I will reshare a reprint of the June 4, 2010 article “Washington Dispatch No. 7: Roundtable Discussion on Transparency and Technology.”
The roundtable featuring Tim Cummins, Karen S. Evans, Colin Cram, and Judy Bradt remains one of the most interesting discussions I have ever moderated for the PI Window On The World Podcasts.
“Fifteen years later, the 2010 piece reads less like a time capsule and more like the blueprint for today’s procurement-AI readiness movement—its only gap is cyber and data lineage, not wisdom.“
Combined Summary & Relevancy Assessment (Models 1–4 & 5)
Across all five Models, Washington Dispatch No. 7: Roundtable on Transparency and Technology stands as one of the most durable and predictive posts in the Procurement Insights archive. While Model 4 rates it 4 / 10 (moderately relevant) for its limited coverage of modern advances like blockchain, ESG, and AI governance, the other four Models consistently position it between 1 – 2 / 10 on the “datedness” scale—meaning it remains highly relevant. The consensus is clear: the article’s early identification of structural failures in the technology-first procurement model, its call for commercial acumen over compliance, and its insistence that service and relational value outweigh product sales were far ahead of their time. In aggregate, these evaluations yield an average relevancy score of ≈ 2.2 / 10, corresponding to roughly 78 – 80 percent enduring relevance when normalized to the Hansen Fit Score framework.
Interpretive Overview
Viewed collectively, the five Models trace a through-line from Equation-Based dependency (2010) to Metaprise Governance maturity (2025). Model 1 treats the post as a “pre-HFS manifesto,” Model 2 extends its foresight through data-driven adoption metrics, Model 3 and Model 6 frame it as foundational to Behavioral Alignment and Canonical Rails, and Model 4 serves as the historical control case validating how far technology and regulation have evolved. Taken together, they demonstrate that the article’s thesis—technology should facilitate, not dictate, human and relational intelligence—remains the backbone of modern procurement transformation. In Hansen Fit Score terms, the 2010 Roundtable achieves an estimated composite rating of 8.5 / 10 across Technical Operating Fit (TOF), Behavioral Readiness (BRR), and Governance Readiness (GER), confirming its continuing influence on the sector’s ethical, structural, and digital evolution.
THE JUNE 4, 2010 ARTICLE
Washington Dispatch No. 7: Roundtable Discussion on Transparency and Technology
Posted on June 4, 2010
Ironically, given the enormous investments made in procurement technologies over the past decade, their use remains markedly poor. Only 1 4% of the companies surveyed expressed confidence that 60% of spend was being channeled through eProcurement, the typical benchmark for applications of this nature; more than 60% placed eProcurement usage at less than 20%.
from Chances and Challenges for Buyers by Leon Smith, Supply Chain Europe (November 2009)
One of the most interesting aspects of what was already a thought-provoking discussion emerged when I suggested to our expert panel that the government might have abdicated the relationship side of the procurement process in favor of technological compliance and scalability. In essence, focusing more on what IACCM’s Tim Cummins called “contractual rules” through technologically driven compliance rather than on actual “commercial acumen” leading to best-value decision-making.
Tim Cummins, Executive Director, Commerce & Contract Management Institute
Through this broadening lens of informed understanding, the abysmal usage statistics referenced above make a great deal of sense. This is because the emphasis has traditionally been almost exclusively on the end-user adapting to the technology, as if following a pied-piper, with the same result: being led over a cliff of increasing costs and declining returns.
In this regard, Karen Evans hit the proverbial nail on the head when she made the statement that “products” (re technology) do not replace skill sets.” According to the former CIO of the U.S. Federal Government, “vendors have to change their business models,” focusing on the critical areas of “quality of service and reliability of data.”
Karen S. Evans, Board Member, Strategic Technology Executive, Former Federal Chief Information Officer
This Evans continued is “different from selling an Oracle database,” even if it is within the realms of a virtualized or “cloud computing” architecture. Her reasoning is that cloud computing is really just “optimizing the use of infrastructure” and is therefore a commodity rather than an actual service.
This is a critical observation by Evans, as it goes to the heart of the paradigm shift that has created the chasm between the traditional ERP-based applications offered by Oracle, SAP, and, until recently, Ariba, and the emergence of original SaaS-based solution providers.
The inherent problems faced by traditional ERP vendors such as Oracle and SAP are that they view SaaS as a pricing model within the framework of their existing architectures, rather than as an organically originating, radically different adaptive platform.
In both my May 18th (SaaS Sprawl, One-Stop Shopping and Free 8-Tracks To Boot: A Sad Day in the World of SAP) and May 26th (Traditional ERP vendors such as SAP and Oracle overlook the Disruptive Innovation question when they discuss their move to a SaaS model) posts, I make reference to a comment by Ariba’s CMO Tim Minahan. Minahan, who is the former CSO and Senior Vice President, Global Supply Research at Aberdeen Group, expressed his opinion that “Oracle’s on-demand sourcing is not really on-demand at all,” and “if he were an Oracle or SAP customer,” he’d be confused, and that he thinks that “that’s their intention.” (Once again, I strongly recommend that you check out the on-demand version of the Minahan interview.)
Obviously risking a “one who lives in a glass house should not throw stones” response from either Oracle or SAP, and of course, without calculating the ultimate result of Ariba’s DNA transformation to a on-demand provider, Minahan nonetheless echoes a similar sentiment to those expressed by Evans.
Evans further stressed her point by emphasizing her belief that “government needs to make hard decisions about best solutions,” and in the process, “reduce operating costs” through leveraging or “maximizing what is already out there.” This shift in mindset, in which government can no longer “buy products,” but should instead focus on acquiring “services and relationships,” presents the most significant challenge and perhaps threat to the traditional vendor models under which Oracle and SAP have conducted business (re technology-centric collaboration).
Based on recent comments by SAP’s John Wookey regarding the vendor’s “orchestration” of on-demand functionality within the current SAP architecture, it would appear this point continues to elude his organization, despite the minimal utilization statistics referenced in the Smith article. That being said, Wookey’s own acknowledgment that “customers that already have gone with SaaS in addition to an on-premise suite may not swap out for on-demand orchestration” might indicate a recognition that a change is afoot.
The bottom line reality is that these traditional technology vendors are simply too top-heavy in terms of head count and associated operating costs, which, when combined with Wall Street influences, preclude them from moving aggressively towards the kind of “DNA cultural transformation upon which Ariba embarked last year.” It should be noted that Ariba’s decision to make the move to an on-demand model was, to a certain degree, influenced by their losing $3 billion on $1 billion in sales between 2001 and 2005. This is a motivating factor that neither SAP nor Oracle presently faces . . . at least for the time being.
While the shifting sensibilities of end user decision-making gravitates towards a more service/relationship oriented outcome, and therefore provides original and emerging SaaS vendors with a marked advantage over their ERP-based counterparts, these new titans of the eProcurement world would be well-advised to avoid the same trappings of leading with their technology alone, including an overemphasis on their lower costs and reduced implementation time lines. The temptation to do so is usually strong, given the algorithm-driven, agent-based solutions they provide on a pay-per-transaction basis. In short, real-time, real-world dashboard technology is pretty cool stuff. However, technology, no matter how advanced, has to be a behind-the-scenes facilitator of efficient, relational processes rather than a front-and-center initiative-based player. This, of course, leads us right back to IACCM’s Cummins’ remarks about buyer skill sets now being more focused on commercial acumen versus rules compliance, and the need to build collaborative relationships and solutions.
As a result, all vendors need to understand that merely providing centralized guidelines electronically and automating the purchasing process (no matter how technologically advanced) is not sufficient. This is because the challenges that end users face, as Cummins pointed out, are not technological but directly related to the aforementioned limited skill sets (which, again, is beginning to change) and an inability to effectively “outsource relationships.” An issue Cummins noted that is not indigenous to the public sector domain alone. However, it is especially problematic for government entities, given that many are either contemplating or already pursuing a Shared Services or Outsourcing strategy. Both of which are heavily dependent on personnel aptitude and effective stakeholder interaction.
The question of disconnected relationships, according to Cummins, is not confined to external interactions with suppliers but also reflects a general “failure” on the part of “public procurement agencies to look beyond their own internal borders.” This “fascinating lack of real substantive discussion” is perhaps a contributing factor to what Colin Cram cited as one reason behind the “huge amount of added cost,” namely that procurement people are more interested in “protecting themselves versus delivering real value.”
Colin Cram, Towards Tesco
Perhaps one of the most critical highlights of the serious flaws associated with a traditional technology-driven approach to procurement, according to Cram, is how it enables government to “hide within” or behind costly “procedures.”
Referencing his “Towards Tesco – improving public sector procurement” paper, which indicates that the UK government could save £25 billion per year through improvements in key areas, Cram expressed the opinion that, besides the problems with “procurement fragmentation when engaging the private sector,” the government has “excessive procedures” that unnecessarily complicate and hinder supplier participation.
It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that, as with the old “garbage in – garbage out” analogy, automating procedure-laden processes will not make up for the absence of the required skill sets or collaborative platforms. This is yet another indicator as to why adoption rates of eProcurement technologies are as low as they are.
Consistent with the opinions of both Evans and Cummins, Cram also believes the government must begin “contracting out for relationships.” Unfortunately, according to the 30-year UK public sector veteran, while “many authorities are getting the picture” regarding the need to focus on relationships, few have actually addressed the onerous procedures associated with establishing and building the necessary rapport through the current RFP process, which, according to Cram, are unnecessarily arduous.
This ultimately leads back to the steady erosion of the supplier relationships that are needed to ensure the government achieves maximum value for money. Simply put, suppliers continue to believe that the government procurement process, in which technology is a dominant presence, is geared toward a belt-and-suspenders approach to justifying a decision that has already been made.
With fewer suppliers coming to the table, pricing inconsistencies from one agency to the next, and low bids accompanied by declining service levels, Evans laments the usual outcome.
So what is the answer for effectively leveraging technology to build collaborative business relationships that improve skill sets and maximize service delivery?
According to Washington-based expert author Judy Bradt, the foundations for addressing the above challenges are already in place, especially in the United States.
Judy Bradt, Summit Insight
Sharing a similar level of enthusiasm to that expressed by Dr. Betsy McCaughey, who during a recent interview regarding an equally daunting and somewhat pervasive problem indicated that the “good news” is that “you don’t often come across such a big problem that you can solve,” Bradt cited a recent announcement by the DoD that they were “formally encouraging the use of social media” as one of the key reasons for her optimistic outlook. (Note: refer to the “Defense Department to Announce Balanced Social Media Policy“article of September 23rd, 2009.)
The DoD decision is, without a doubt, very interesting, given past tendencies among both public and private sector enterprises to either limit or outright restrict employee access to social media during business hours. This change of heart, according to Bradt, will further enhance what she referred to as an already “rich business culture” that “is based on the power of existing associations to bring stakeholders together” and will further strengthen the needed relationships and open the required channels of collaboration within the public sector procurement world.
Bradt’s views certainly have a great deal of merit, as web-based “technologies” such as LinkedIn and Facebook, and services such as Twitter, are platforms within which a growing number of buyers and vendors are beginning to interact. What is telling is that some of these vendors are actually looking beyond the communicative advantages of the group development and blogging venues associated with social media, and are extending the functional capabilities of their core solutions through a direct social media interface.
In an ironic twist, free or low-cost social media collaboration platforms may very well become the transformational bridge between the costly ERP-centric type applications of the past, and the steadily emerging on-demand SaaS solutions which, through their dramatically reduced cost and shortened implementation period, fall in line with Evans’ assessment that government can no longer “buy products,” but should instead focus on acquiring “services and relationships.”
Next White Paper Excerpt: Supplier Navigation of a Non-Linear Process
About the Summit:
The PI Window on Business took its show on the road on April 27th and 28th, thanks to sponsor Elcom and the tremendous work of the 2010 Business of Government Summit’s organizer, Shared Services and Outsourcing Network (SSON).
It was a first-rate venue where we broadcast “live” 5 incredibly informative sessions focused on “Building a Transparent, Collaborative and High-Performance Government Capable of Addressing the Challenges of the 21st Century.”
The attendees, mostly senior officials and executives from the public sector, were exposed to an incredible array of thought leaders whose shared insights and experiences provided much-needed (and welcome) perspectives on both the challenges and potential strategies for effective government practices in the 21st century.
PI Window on Business Show . . . Radio Has Never Sounded Better!
30
Procurement Insights
Fifteen Years Later: The 2010 Roundtable That Predicted Procurement’s Future
Posted on October 16, 2025
0
Combined Summary & Relevancy Assessment (Models 1–4 & 5)
Across all five Models, Washington Dispatch No. 7: Roundtable on Transparency and Technology stands as one of the most durable and predictive posts in the Procurement Insights archive. While Model 4 rates it 4 / 10 (moderately relevant) for its limited coverage of modern advances like blockchain, ESG, and AI governance, the other four Models consistently position it between 1 – 2 / 10 on the “datedness” scale—meaning it remains highly relevant. The consensus is clear: the article’s early identification of structural failures in the technology-first procurement model, its call for commercial acumen over compliance, and its insistence that service and relational value outweigh product sales were far ahead of their time. In aggregate, these evaluations yield an average relevancy score of ≈ 2.2 / 10, corresponding to roughly 78 – 80 percent enduring relevance when normalized to the Hansen Fit Score framework.
Interpretive Overview
Viewed collectively, the five Models trace a through-line from Equation-Based dependency (2010) to Metaprise Governance maturity (2025). Model 1 treats the post as a “pre-HFS manifesto,” Model 2 extends its foresight through data-driven adoption metrics, Model 3 and Model 6 frame it as foundational to Behavioral Alignment and Canonical Rails, and Model 4 serves as the historical control case validating how far technology and regulation have evolved. Taken together, they demonstrate that the article’s thesis—technology should facilitate, not dictate, human and relational intelligence—remains the backbone of modern procurement transformation. In Hansen Fit Score terms, the 2010 Roundtable achieves an estimated composite rating of 8.5 / 10 across Technical Operating Fit (TOF), Behavioral Readiness (BRR), and Governance Readiness (GER), confirming its continuing influence on the sector’s ethical, structural, and digital evolution.
THE JUNE 4, 2010 ARTICLE
Washington Dispatch No. 7: Roundtable Discussion on Transparency and Technology
Posted on June 4, 2010
Ironically, given the enormous investments made in procurement technologies over the past decade, their use remains markedly poor. Only 1 4% of the companies surveyed expressed confidence that 60% of spend was being channeled through eProcurement, the typical benchmark for applications of this nature; more than 60% placed eProcurement usage at less than 20%.
from Chances and Challenges for Buyers by Leon Smith, Supply Chain Europe (November 2009)
One of the most interesting aspects of what was already a thought-provoking discussion emerged when I suggested to our expert panel that the government might have abdicated the relationship side of the procurement process in favor of technological compliance and scalability. In essence, focusing more on what IACCM’s Tim Cummins called “contractual rules” through technologically driven compliance rather than on actual “commercial acumen” leading to best-value decision-making.
Tim Cummins, Executive Director, Commerce & Contract Management Institute
Through this broadening lens of informed understanding, the abysmal usage statistics referenced above make a great deal of sense. This is because the emphasis has traditionally been almost exclusively on the end-user adapting to the technology, as if following a pied-piper, with the same result: being led over a cliff of increasing costs and declining returns.
In this regard, Karen Evans hit the proverbial nail on the head when she made the statement that “products” (re technology) do not replace skill sets.” According to the former CIO of the U.S. Federal Government, “vendors have to change their business models,” focusing on the critical areas of “quality of service and reliability of data.”
Karen S. Evans, Board Member, Strategic Technology Executive, Former Federal Chief Information Officer
This Evans continued is “different from selling an Oracle database,” even if it is within the realms of a virtualized or “cloud computing” architecture. Her reasoning is that cloud computing is really just “optimizing the use of infrastructure” and is therefore a commodity rather than an actual service.
This is a critical observation by Evans, as it goes to the heart of the paradigm shift that has created the chasm between the traditional ERP-based applications offered by Oracle, SAP, and, until recently, Ariba, and the emergence of original SaaS-based solution providers.
The inherent problems faced by traditional ERP vendors such as Oracle and SAP are that they view SaaS as a pricing model within the framework of their existing architectures, rather than as an organically originating, radically different adaptive platform.
In both my May 18th (SaaS Sprawl, One-Stop Shopping and Free 8-Tracks To Boot: A Sad Day in the World of SAP) and May 26th (Traditional ERP vendors such as SAP and Oracle overlook the Disruptive Innovation question when they discuss their move to a SaaS model) posts, I make reference to a comment by Ariba’s CMO Tim Minahan. Minahan, who is the former CSO and Senior Vice President, Global Supply Research at Aberdeen Group, expressed his opinion that “Oracle’s on-demand sourcing is not really on-demand at all,” and “if he were an Oracle or SAP customer,” he’d be confused, and that he thinks that “that’s their intention.” (Once again, I strongly recommend that you check out the on-demand version of the Minahan interview.)
Obviously risking a “one who lives in a glass house should not throw stones” response from either Oracle or SAP, and of course, without calculating the ultimate result of Ariba’s DNA transformation to a on-demand provider, Minahan nonetheless echoes a similar sentiment to those expressed by Evans.
Evans further stressed her point by emphasizing her belief that “government needs to make hard decisions about best solutions,” and in the process, “reduce operating costs” through leveraging or “maximizing what is already out there.” This shift in mindset, in which government can no longer “buy products,” but should instead focus on acquiring “services and relationships,” presents the most significant challenge and perhaps threat to the traditional vendor models under which Oracle and SAP have conducted business (re technology-centric collaboration).
Based on recent comments by SAP’s John Wookey regarding the vendor’s “orchestration” of on-demand functionality within the current SAP architecture, it would appear this point continues to elude his organization, despite the minimal utilization statistics referenced in the Smith article. That being said, Wookey’s own acknowledgment that “customers that already have gone with SaaS in addition to an on-premise suite may not swap out for on-demand orchestration” might indicate a recognition that a change is afoot.
The bottom line reality is that these traditional technology vendors are simply too top-heavy in terms of head count and associated operating costs, which, when combined with Wall Street influences, preclude them from moving aggressively towards the kind of “DNA cultural transformation upon which Ariba embarked last year.” It should be noted that Ariba’s decision to make the move to an on-demand model was, to a certain degree, influenced by their losing $3 billion on $1 billion in sales between 2001 and 2005. This is a motivating factor that neither SAP nor Oracle presently faces . . . at least for the time being.
While the shifting sensibilities of end user decision-making gravitates towards a more service/relationship oriented outcome, and therefore provides original and emerging SaaS vendors with a marked advantage over their ERP-based counterparts, these new titans of the eProcurement world would be well-advised to avoid the same trappings of leading with their technology alone, including an overemphasis on their lower costs and reduced implementation time lines. The temptation to do so is usually strong, given the algorithm-driven, agent-based solutions they provide on a pay-per-transaction basis. In short, real-time, real-world dashboard technology is pretty cool stuff. However, technology, no matter how advanced, has to be a behind-the-scenes facilitator of efficient, relational processes rather than a front-and-center initiative-based player. This, of course, leads us right back to IACCM’s Cummins’ remarks about buyer skill sets now being more focused on commercial acumen versus rules compliance, and the need to build collaborative relationships and solutions.
As a result, all vendors need to understand that merely providing centralized guidelines electronically and automating the purchasing process (no matter how technologically advanced) is not sufficient. This is because the challenges that end users face, as Cummins pointed out, are not technological but directly related to the aforementioned limited skill sets (which, again, is beginning to change) and an inability to effectively “outsource relationships.” An issue Cummins noted that is not indigenous to the public sector domain alone. However, it is especially problematic for government entities, given that many are either contemplating or already pursuing a Shared Services or Outsourcing strategy. Both of which are heavily dependent on personnel aptitude and effective stakeholder interaction.
The question of disconnected relationships, according to Cummins, is not confined to external interactions with suppliers but also reflects a general “failure” on the part of “public procurement agencies to look beyond their own internal borders.” This “fascinating lack of real substantive discussion” is perhaps a contributing factor to what Colin Cram cited as one reason behind the “huge amount of added cost,” namely that procurement people are more interested in “protecting themselves versus delivering real value.”
Colin Cram, Towards Tesco
Perhaps one of the most critical highlights of the serious flaws associated with a traditional technology-driven approach to procurement, according to Cram, is how it enables government to “hide within” or behind costly “procedures.”
Referencing his “Towards Tesco – improving public sector procurement” paper, which indicates that the UK government could save £25 billion per year through improvements in key areas, Cram expressed the opinion that, besides the problems with “procurement fragmentation when engaging the private sector,” the government has “excessive procedures” that unnecessarily complicate and hinder supplier participation.
It is therefore not unreasonable to conclude that, as with the old “garbage in – garbage out” analogy, automating procedure-laden processes will not make up for the absence of the required skill sets or collaborative platforms. This is yet another indicator as to why adoption rates of eProcurement technologies are as low as they are.
Consistent with the opinions of both Evans and Cummins, Cram also believes the government must begin “contracting out for relationships.” Unfortunately, according to the 30-year UK public sector veteran, while “many authorities are getting the picture” regarding the need to focus on relationships, few have actually addressed the onerous procedures associated with establishing and building the necessary rapport through the current RFP process, which, according to Cram, are unnecessarily arduous.
This ultimately leads back to the steady erosion of the supplier relationships that are needed to ensure the government achieves maximum value for money. Simply put, suppliers continue to believe that the government procurement process, in which technology is a dominant presence, is geared toward a belt-and-suspenders approach to justifying a decision that has already been made.
With fewer suppliers coming to the table, pricing inconsistencies from one agency to the next, and low bids accompanied by declining service levels, Evans laments the usual outcome.
So what is the answer for effectively leveraging technology to build collaborative business relationships that improve skill sets and maximize service delivery?
According to Washington-based expert author Judy Bradt, the foundations for addressing the above challenges are already in place, especially in the United States.
Judy Bradt, Summit Insight
Sharing a similar level of enthusiasm to that expressed by Dr. Betsy McCaughey, who during a recent interview regarding an equally daunting and somewhat pervasive problem indicated that the “good news” is that “you don’t often come across such a big problem that you can solve,” Bradt cited a recent announcement by the DoD that they were “formally encouraging the use of social media” as one of the key reasons for her optimistic outlook. (Note: refer to the “Defense Department to Announce Balanced Social Media Policy“article of September 23rd, 2009.)
The DoD decision is, without a doubt, very interesting, given past tendencies among both public and private sector enterprises to either limit or outright restrict employee access to social media during business hours. This change of heart, according to Bradt, will further enhance what she referred to as an already “rich business culture” that “is based on the power of existing associations to bring stakeholders together” and will further strengthen the needed relationships and open the required channels of collaboration within the public sector procurement world.
Bradt’s views certainly have a great deal of merit, as web-based “technologies” such as LinkedIn and Facebook, and services such as Twitter, are platforms within which a growing number of buyers and vendors are beginning to interact. What is telling is that some of these vendors are actually looking beyond the communicative advantages of the group development and blogging venues associated with social media, and are extending the functional capabilities of their core solutions through a direct social media interface.
In an ironic twist, free or low-cost social media collaboration platforms may very well become the transformational bridge between the costly ERP-centric type applications of the past, and the steadily emerging on-demand SaaS solutions which, through their dramatically reduced cost and shortened implementation period, fall in line with Evans’ assessment that government can no longer “buy products,” but should instead focus on acquiring “services and relationships.”
Next White Paper Excerpt: Supplier Navigation of a Non-Linear Process
About the Summit:
The PI Window on Business took its show on the road on April 27th and 28th, thanks to sponsor Elcom and the tremendous work of the 2010 Business of Government Summit’s organizer, Shared Services and Outsourcing Network (SSON).
It was a first-rate venue where we broadcast “live” 5 incredibly informative sessions focused on “Building a Transparent, Collaborative and High-Performance Government Capable of Addressing the Challenges of the 21st Century.”
The attendees, mostly senior officials and executives from the public sector, were exposed to an incredible array of thought leaders whose shared insights and experiences provided much-needed (and welcome) perspectives on both the challenges and potential strategies for effective government practices in the 21st century.
PI Window on Business Show . . . Radio Has Never Sounded Better!
30
Share this:
Related