spend matters spend matters About this site
Advertise with Spend Matters
Advertise with Spend Matters
 

July 29, 2010

 

Spend Hydroplaning -- Purchasing Magazine Skims the Surface of Spend Analysis (Part 1)

A recent Purchasing article on what $100K buys in spend analysis has already had some rotten tomatoes hurled at it by an irate blogger. In his response to the article, Michael Lamoureux, who posts as "The Doctor," gets only one of his criticisms wrong (e.g., Insight Sourcing), and nearly all of them right, at least as Spend Matters keeps the spending visibility functional score. The fact that Purchasing overlooked BIQ, Rosslyn Analytics, Spend Radar and others, while driving to a $100K price point by comparing apples to oranges, provides a potential disservice to the market. Still, I do think we should applaud a trade publication to some degree for at least trying to analyze a software market that its readers should be thinking about. But I'm not clapping my hands too loudly.

In my view, the question should not be what $100K can buy -- the answer varies widely from vendor to vendor depending on a range of factors -- but rather, what do you need if you only have $100K to spend, based on your individual priorities. Moreover, the article ignores the frequency -- and potential benefits -- of spend analysis as a service delivered by solution/consulting firms to potentially identify sourcing savings and reclamation areas (e.g., invoice audits) more quickly. Moreover, from a technology perspective, companies need to ask themselves whether or not it's important to have their spend analysis capabilities integrated closely into their sourcing, contract management, and supplier performance-management processes and tools. If the answer is "yes," they may very well choose to spend $100K differently than if not.

If Purchasing had reached out to either myself, Michael or other non-traditional analysts in addition to AMR Research and Forrester, we could have provided them with more detailed pricing intelligence than what they gleaned from talking with traditional analyst houses, namely that "procurement operations more likely will need to spend more on spend analysis software, probably about $150,000 to $200,000." Moreover, not all approaches to spend analysis (including data classification and analytics) are created equal, as any experienced procurement analyst knows, and the path you choose in these areas will play a major factor in which vendors you ultimately select and how much you want to spend. For example, there are very real reasons why you might want to invest in multiple spend analysis approaches to accomplish different goals, each with its own justification for either delivering or managing returns (or reducing risk).

In short, it's not a bad thing that Purchasing put the spend analysis question on the table, but those interested in double-clicking on the subject for their own companies would be well advised to look beyond the information shared in the article, which is at best a partial primer, and at worst potentially misleading. Moreover, this story presents a lesson in why it's worth reaching out to additional expert sources (e.g., bloggers, consultants) beyond traditional analyst houses for their opinions to get a more in-the-trenches view of a subject. I could personally have recommended over half-a-dozen true experts to interview on the topic (in addition to sharing my own thoughts) who would have helped Purchasing frame their story in a more pragmatic, accurate and educational way.

Stay tuned for more on the subject tomorrow or next week.

- Jason Busch


TweetBacks
Comments
Give the Heave Ho to Purchasing.Com's Gravatar It's hard to give any credibility to a publication when their first Spend Analysis product listed Ariba's Rfx platform for entry level sourcing, and isn't a spend analysis tool per se.
# Posted By Give the Heave Ho to Purchasing.Com | 2/25/10 8:02 AM
Mark Usher's Gravatar I agree Jason, a disappointingly short-sighted article that perpetuates the paradigm of spend analysis solutions (whether software, services or a combination) having no ROI. The article falls short not just in oversizing the budget requirements of a spend analytics tool (Eric - I can see the steam coming out of your ears from over here on the west coast) but in failing to take advantage of a tremendous opportunity to educate its practitioner reader base in the measurable return that spend analysis delivers. Even though "big returns" appears in the title and "tangible value" in the body the thrust of the piece seems to be "what spend analysis tool can I buy with the loose change left over from my ERP implementation?"

I attempted to communicate the powerful validity of spend analysis ROI a while back in:

http://1procurementplace.blogspot.com/2008/08/can-...
# Posted By Mark Usher | 2/25/10 12:03 PM
PurchasingFan's Gravatar Jason re :"we could have provided them with more detailed pricing intelligence" can you post it here? For example, what do BIQ, Spend Radar, Rosslyn, etc, provide for $100K in terms of number of seat licenses, functionality, etc.? I would find that more helpful than pointing out what is wrong with other reviews. Just my two cents.
# Posted By PurchasingFan | 2/25/10 8:09 PM
Purchasingfan's Gravatar Scratch that--I see Purchasing has Rossalyn listed at the bottom. But any real $$ pricing info you can provide is helpful to us in purchasing.
# Posted By Purchasingfan | 2/26/10 6:15 AM
Jason Busch's Gravatar I'm slammed through next weekend on projects and work (most posts already queued up), but I'll try and address some price points in early March. Needless to say, in the deal behavior with competition is very different from what they'll tell a magazine.
# Posted By Jason Busch | 2/26/10 6:21 AM
About Us | Advertising and Sponsorships | Advisory Services | Contact Us   © 2004-2010 Spend Matters, LP All rights reserved