EDITOR’S NOTE: Yesterday’s post certainly started to stimulate some thought-provoking feedback from people like Dave Jones and R.Gökhan Hüner.
The following are their respective comments and my corresponding response.
Dave Jones, MCIPS (and Next Gen Rebel)
Great post. Failure to involve end users in tech decisions and subsequent implementation is the main reason things fail. After all, there is little point in orchestrating a poorly thought-through process with complex tech. Orchestration will not magic away suboptimal things. Plus, I wonder if it is the latest bandwagon.
R.Gökhan Hüner (Vodafone)
I think we sometimes overthink about technology. Before that, there needs to be a clear sourcing policy with a well-defined and understood E2E process with roles and responsibilities between procurement and relevant key stakeholders. Technology can only support the process if everybody is familiar with it. Then, fully agree all the tools need to be tailor-made and fit-for-purpose for the procurement in line with the process defined and well-trained across not only procurement but also those key stakeholders. Sadly, most tools and technology are implemented following an RFQ where the cheapest TCO wins without any contribution to procurement for generating value for the organisation.
My Response
R.Gökhan Hüner, you provide great insights that immediately reminded me of the following excerpt from an article I wrote in 2007 – https://bit.ly/40HDpfL
“Unfortunately, most purchasing departments “inherit” their software as an adjunct downstream byproduct of either an original finance or IT-centric initiative. This has usually meant that their input had been relegated to the realm of the afterthought versus providing decisive and proactive input when it matters the most – prior to a decision being made. Unless this hierarchical practice is changed, the majority of organizations will end up banking on the SOA train linking disparate and inefficient applications to deliver results in the emerging decentralized world of procurement.”
The question this raises per Dave Jones‘ comment is what “existing” technologies are being “orchestrated” in the first place? Are we following the old SOA pattern of loosely “knitting together” remnants of misaligned technologies in the hope that the “collective” will magically work? This is why we must know the people behind the technology.
Thoughts?
30
Procurement Insights
What “technology musicians” are in your procurement automation orchestra pit?
Posted on December 27, 2023
0
EDITOR’S NOTE: Yesterday’s post certainly started to stimulate some thought-provoking feedback from people like Dave Jones and R.Gökhan Hüner.
The following are their respective comments and my corresponding response.
Dave Jones, MCIPS (and Next Gen Rebel)
Great post. Failure to involve end users in tech decisions and subsequent implementation is the main reason things fail. After all, there is little point in orchestrating a poorly thought-through process with complex tech. Orchestration will not magic away suboptimal things. Plus, I wonder if it is the latest bandwagon.
R.Gökhan Hüner (Vodafone)
I think we sometimes overthink about technology. Before that, there needs to be a clear sourcing policy with a well-defined and understood E2E process with roles and responsibilities between procurement and relevant key stakeholders. Technology can only support the process if everybody is familiar with it. Then, fully agree all the tools need to be tailor-made and fit-for-purpose for the procurement in line with the process defined and well-trained across not only procurement but also those key stakeholders. Sadly, most tools and technology are implemented following an RFQ where the cheapest TCO wins without any contribution to procurement for generating value for the organisation.
My Response
R.Gökhan Hüner, you provide great insights that immediately reminded me of the following excerpt from an article I wrote in 2007 – https://bit.ly/40HDpfL
“Unfortunately, most purchasing departments “inherit” their software as an adjunct downstream byproduct of either an original finance or IT-centric initiative. This has usually meant that their input had been relegated to the realm of the afterthought versus providing decisive and proactive input when it matters the most – prior to a decision being made. Unless this hierarchical practice is changed, the majority of organizations will end up banking on the SOA train linking disparate and inefficient applications to deliver results in the emerging decentralized world of procurement.”
The question this raises per Dave Jones‘ comment is what “existing” technologies are being “orchestrated” in the first place? Are we following the old SOA pattern of loosely “knitting together” remnants of misaligned technologies in the hope that the “collective” will magically work? This is why we must know the people behind the technology.
Thoughts?
30
Share this:
Related