The new edition of the acxias barometer of digital purchasing and e-procurement solutions highlights the strengths and weaknesses of the main publishers present on the French market. At the same time, it identifies various avenues for improvement to better conduct and succeed in computerization projects for the function.
Digital publishers through the scrutiny of digital purchases
If it will be necessary to wait for the white paper of September for the detailed results, acxias presented Tuesday, June 16 the main trends of its 2015 Barometer of digital purchasing and e-procurement solutions. Conducted online via a questionnaire offered from mid-March to mid-April, the survey measures the satisfaction of user companies with their principal procurement management tool and supplies, and especially from their publisher. Overall, the responses of the 68 respondents (purchasing directors and managers, buyers, project managers, purchasing information systems managers, etc.), representing a panel of sixty companies from all sectors and sizes (60% of large groups), are rather encouraging. Nevertheless, the firm highlights a great disparity between the evaluations of the fifteen actors mentioned (*), and a deterioration sometimes significant for some of them, on some aspects, compared to the previous edition of 2012-2013. The barometer also ends with an astonishing balance sheet: if we had to start again, more than one in five companies (21%) would not make the same choice of solution and publishers, a proportion up 7 points in three years.
In terms of scope, the project is limited to one or two segments of the purchasing cycle for about half of the respondents, mainly e-sourcing (57% of citations), contract management (51%) and e-procurement (50%). But a quarter of the panel announces the deployment of 5 or more modules, the functional extension focusing on the addition of expense analysis, purchasing management or supplier relationship management. The implementation of the invoicing-payment module is mentioned by only one in six companies. While the project's objectives remain classic, improving access to and sharing of information, which is up 14 points compared to 2012 with 79% of citations, is now well ahead of process harmonization (66%) and process simplification (62%), which is down sharply. Economic issues, whether it is the search for additional purchasing savings or the reduction of administrative costs, also decrease.
More interesting, but also more worrying, lessone third of projects fully achieve their objectives. "Have the more mature and structured purchasing departments become more demanding, or have publishers facing an upsurge in projects reduced their level of quality?" asks Bertrand Gabriel, CEO of acxias. In the same way, whether it is the budget or the deadline announced by the publisher, overruns are more frequent than in the previous edition. If we exclude respondents who did not want to express themselves on this point, a third of projects would have seen their bill increase (double that of 2012), and almost half (46%, +11 points) their schedule lengthened. However, there is no question of systematically blaming the publisher: companies recognize a modification or inaccuracy of the initial scope, an underestimation of the complexity of the site (process, need, etc.) or internal organization problems. But the performance of the solution (bugs, inaccurate features, etc.) or the quality of the editor's intervention are also pointed out.
The details of the evaluations give a more precise idea of the difficulties or points of satisfaction encountered. As for their publisher, in the "preliminary design" phase – consultation, model, etc. -, companies give the best scores to the knowledge and presentation of the solution (4.1 out of 5) on the one hand, and to the transparency and clarity of the pricing conditions (3.7) on the other hand. "But they are rather disappointed by the understanding of their needs and the adequacy of the response provided, or by the lack of flexibility to negotiate contractual conditions, with however strong disparities and sometimes severe judgments, including on the side of the largest players, "adds Bertrand Gabriel. In the same logic, the knowledge of the solution and the level of technicality of the stakeholders (3.6 out of 5) is also a strong point of publishers in "project" mode (integration, development, etc.). This point is simply preceded by the respect of commitments on the budget (3.8), which is well ahead despite the slippages observed. During this phase of the projects, the worst assessments concern thegeneral accompaniment during the miss in implementation, the quality of training and knowledge transfer, and above all the responsiveness to solve unins anticipated problems. With still struggling actors, and highly degraded ratings compared to 2012. The difficulty of publishers to react in the event of unforeseen events is also pointed out in "post-project" phase (maintenance, support, etc.). During this stage, respondents rather appreciate the respect of service commitments, responsiveness in the event of a technical problem and the quality of support, but with fairly average scores, around 3.2.
The evaluation of their solution by companies reveals much fewer surprises. Admittedly, the highest ratings concern two aspects that are sometimes considered secondary at first: international coverage (languages, currencies, etc.) and security management (authorizations, data protection, etc.). But theErgonomics (3.6 out of 5), the price (3.5) and the functional suitability (3.5) in relation to the expressed needs come immediately after. On the side of the weak points, the reproaches relate to the capacities of evolution and, above all, to the possibilities of parameterization-customization and on the documentation. "On these aspects, historical players, with extensive solutions but which have become more complex over the years, are mainly targeted," says Bertrand Gabriel. To help them in their thinking, their choices and the implementation of their solution, half of the companies on the panel indicate that they have been accompanied by a partner, mainly by a specialized consulting firm or an integrator, sometimes also by in-house specialists, whose skills and level of knowledge are highlighted.
(*) Ariba (SAP group), B-pack, BravoSolution, Capgemini-IBX, Coupa, IBM-Emptoris, Ivalua, Oalia, Per Angusta, Perfect Commerce, Saleforce, SAP (excluding Ariba), Seres, Sievo, SynerTrade
Choosing the solution
To select their solution, a large majority (62%) of companies preferred the tender route and consulted an average of four publishers. For more than two-thirds of the panel, between two and five solutions were evaluated. The first three selection criteria have not changed since the 2012 edition of the barometer, but the order has been reversed: functional coverage in relation to needs (32.5% of citations) is downshifting two places and giving way to ergonomics (45%), while cost (40%) remains in second place. Then come the speed and simplicity of implementation, the ease of integration with the existing and administration, flexibility (configuration, customization, etc.).
Companies are also increasingly interested in the profile of the publisher (size, market share, strategy, etc.), the sustainability of the solution (installed base, roadmap, etc.) and associated services.