1. Change is the only constant

Following the success of last year’s series of blogs taking an in-depth look at procurement technology and data, I wanted to follow up with a similar series on change management. For procurement technology and data to bring about a paradigm shift in procurement performance, organisations will have to provide excellent change management.

Organisations today perceive themselves as less and less stable, and more as a work in progress undergoing continuous change (Burnes, 2009). The frequency of mergers and acquisitions, new technologies, product innovations, all contribute to the continuous state of flux. Procurement often find itself at the forefront of many of these changes so adding some change management tools to the procurement ones make procurement professionals even more valuable.

The good news is that many of the skills required for procurement are also required for change management. Looking at the CIPS core skills programme the key requirements are negotiation and performance management. The Centre for Creative Leadership found that the competencies required for successful change initiatives were communication, collaboration and commitment.

Before going any further, it’s worth defining change management. It is the systematic approach to adjusting and transitioning organisational processes, procedures, strategies, attitudes, functions or technologies from their existing state to one that is considered superior (Burnes, 2009; Cameron and Green, 2009).

Change occurs in three ways:

  • planned change is driven by management and employs a structured approach. Much of the theory of planned change was developed by Kurt Lewin, among others, and lies at the heart of organisational development. It is often perceived as slow and time-consuming producing outcomes that are out-of-date. An example of planned change is the successful implementing a new ERP solution like SAP Ariba
  • unplanned change shares many characteristics with planned change but is initiated outside the organisation. When a government passes new legislation like GDPR, for example, organisation have to change their processes in order to comply
  • emergent change is the continual process of experimentation and adaptation that takes place across an organisation. It is the most important development in change management in recent years. Given the organic nature of the change it is often perceived as inefficient and messy. The manager’s role is to maintain the organisation’s cultural characteristics so that good change can occur. Kaizen, the Japanese word meaning “change for better” is an example of emergent change. A more recent example is Facebook’s mantra for developers, “Move Fast and Break Things.”

Over the next four months I’m going to look at ways change management techniques can support procurement and provide hints and tips for making procurement programmes more successful.

Coming of Age

Many people are sceptical of the benefits of new technology and procurement and supply chain professionals are no exception. I believe, however, that this specialist technology is finally coming of age and here’s why. https://www.marketdojo.com/resource/guest-blog-coming-of-age-angus-craig/

Brexit negotiations


2018 will be remembered for the Brexit negotiations. Like many voters and as a procurement professional, I’ve been bewildered by the negotiation strategy that has unfolded since Brexit began almost 2 years ago.

Voters have become familiar with a variety of soundbites like “Brexit means Brexit” and “nothing is agreed until everything is agreed”. Initially this served the perceived political need for all parties, both right and left, to believe that they were going to get the Brexit they wanted, whether that was a hard or soft Brexit. The Chequers Plan shattered any of these illusions by providing no one with what they wanted.

The purpose of the Chequers Plan was to provide Theresa May, the Prime Minister, with a list of requirements. One of the most popular forms of negotiation preparation involves using a Seven Elements approach, as first outlined in “Getting to Yes: Negotiating Agreement Without Giving In” by Roger Fisher, William Ury, and Bruce Patton. The Seven Elements include interests, options, legitimacy, alternatives, communication, relationship, and commitment. It is not clear if these elements were considered at any time before or during the negotiations. As a result, May appears to have been unprepared and poorly informed which has resulted in a deal that is unlikely to be passed by parliament.

Before embarking on a negotiation, procurement professionals would create a strategic sourcing strategy which would include an analysis of the key drivers and the negotiation approach. In the case of the Brexit negotiations, the important drivers are economics, requirements and communications.

1. Economics

As with any debate of this nature, statistics have been used by both parties to justify their opinions. Unfortunately, there are many examples of the misuse of statistics, for example, the claim on the Leave campaign’s bus stating “We send the EU £350 million a week”. This compounded the uncertainty that many already felt.

I could quote the relative value of exports and imports, the criticality of services like banking and funding for EU wide initiatives like scientific research but, in terms of the negotiation, these all pale into insignificance when we consider that UK economy is a sixth of the size of EU.

This single statistics shows us the impact of Brexit on the EU will be much lower than UK which means that EU has considerably more bargaining power. Philip Hammond, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that “looking purely at the economics, remaining in the single market would give us an economic advantage”. From a finance perspective, I would say that the business case for Brexit does not add up and the project should be abandoned.

2. Requirements

Several different surveys have shown that the two main reasons people voted Leave was sovereignty and immigration.

If UK consumers want to eat fresh tomatoes all year round, drive affordable cars and go abroad on holiday, they will have to adopt some international standards.

Furthermore, various interest groups from farmers to hotels to the NHS have asked for exemptions to the proposed immigration rules.

Given these pressures, it is difficult to see how UK parliament will have more scope to set unique laws in areas voters consider to be in the national interest.

From a business perspective, voters have been allowed to develop unrealistic expectations. This should have been identified at the start of the project and addressed through the communications strategy.

3. Communications

Inventing Euro myths has been something of a sport for the British press for nearly 30 years. From custard creams to condoms, EU has been blamed for meddling in almost every aspect of British lives. Without tackling the negativity bias [1] towards the EU, any Brexit agreement would be seen as a poor deal for Britain. Like sovereignty and immigration, this should have been addressed through the communications strategy.

Negotiation format

The Brexit negotiations have always been presented as positional bargaining [2] where UK and EU have been at opposite ends of the spectrum. By starting with an extreme initial position, the parties are forced to make concessions to reach agreement. The negotiation often grows hostile, and communications involve threats and lack transparency. The outcome is either one party winning or the negotiations stalling. All these characteristics are true of the Brexit negotiations.

If principled negotiation [3] had been adopted instead then a greater level of understanding and even trust could have been created delivering a better outcome for both parties. Given the economic situation, EU may have rejected principled negotiation in the clear knowledge that they had the most bargaining power.

Negotiation tactics

In keeping with the positional bargaining, May adopted a competing style of negotiation. This works well where fast negotiations are required and there aren’t many variables. Unfortunately, neither of these factors is true for Brexit. In the end, many will view May’s style as accommodative which led to her to be submissive and concede more than was necessary.

A collaborating style would have been more successful as both parties’ needs are met. Parties brainstorm on how to create mutual value and think outside of the box on collaborating on a solution. Again, EU may have rejected this approach.


UK faces an unprecedented situation in which it is impossible to accurately predict the final outcome. Given May’s tendency to procrastinate, an extension to the deadline looks likely to avoid a No Deal Brexit. Hopefully, lessons have been learned and the extra time will not be wasted.

[1] Negativity bias, also known as the negativity effect, is the notion that, even when of equal intensity, things of a more negative nature (e.g. unpleasant thoughts, emotions, or social interactions; harmful/traumatic events) have a greater effect on one’s psychological state and processes than neutral or positive things. Danny Kahneman (an economist who won the 2002 Nobel prize for his work) asked participants in a study to imagine either losing $50 or gaining $50.  Even though the amount is the same, the magnitude of the emotional response is significantly larger for those imagining what it would be like to lose the money.  In other words, the negativity of losing something is far greater than the goodness of gaining something, even when the “something” that has been lost or gained is objectively equivalent.”

[2] Positional bargaining, also known as distributive negotiation, involves arguing based on a position. Each side takes an extreme position based on its wants, needs, and limitations. These positions are almost always on opposite ends of the spectrum. The parties then treat the negotiation as a zero-sum game in which only one party can “win” the negotiation.

[3] Principled negotiation, also known as integrative negotiation, is a negotiation format in which parties work together to forge a value-creating agreement that leaves both parties happy with the outcome and with the status of the relationship. Principled negotiation creates a collaborative environment in which parties establish shared interests and work together to build mutually beneficial solutions. The parties treat the negotiation as a win-win game where both stand to gain from the outcome.

Industry 4.0

The fourth industrial revolution, or Industry 4.0 for short, is a label used for the next paradigm shift in manufacturing. To be more precise it refers to the current trend of automation and data exchange in manufacturing technologies. It includes some familiar terms like cloud computing and the Internet of Things (IoT) but some less memorable ones like cyber-physical systems and cognitive computing.

The term has been around for some time having originated from a high-tech strategy developed by the German government which was widely publicised in 2011. Given procurement and supply chain are at the centre of manufacturing then it’s a concept the profession should embrace.

A number of concepts developed in manufacturing have been successfully applied to services, for example, kaizen and lean. I think Industry 4.0 is no exception.

Industry 4.0 has four design principles, namely:

  • Interconnection – the ability of machines, devices, sensors, and people to connect and communicate with each other via the IoT
  • Information transparency – interconnectivity enables large amounts of data to be gathered providing the opportunity of perfect information
  • Technical assistance – includes systems to aggregate and visualise information which can be used for making better decisions more quickly. It also includes the ability of cyber physical systems to support humans by conducting a range of tasks that are human do not want to do like those that are routine
  • Decentralised decisions – the ability of cyber physical systems to make decisions on their own and to perform their tasks as autonomously as possible

From these principles we can see that the key procurement processes of source to contract (S2C) and purchase to pay (P2P) are going to be largely automated. Indeed, supplier selection and demand management for categories of spend that are deemed low risk like stationery and IT peripherals will be fully automated.

Those procurement and supply chain processes that are typically done by more junior staff, such as on-boarding suppliers or expediting purchase orders, are going to be replaced by computers in Industry 4.0. This may worry those starting their careers and those looking to develop teams. Fortunately, there are two mitigating factors. First, someone needs to set the rules such as the level of acceptable risk and then provide oversight. Second, Moravec’s paradox still applies in Industry 4.0, which means tasks that require high-level reasoning will be done by computer while those that require emotional intelligence , like managing relationships with internal stakeholders and suppliers, will remain with the humans.

Take my word for it

We met William for the first time in September’s blog and last month we followed him as he managed a supplier selection process. He is a category manager for a global organisation and is responsible for a wide range of spend including marketing. As a result of the successful supplier selection process he persuaded his colleagues in the marketing team to use 3 direct marketing agencies. By agreeing to the organisation’s framework terms and conditions, the 3 agencies became preferred suppliers.

Kate, a team leader, wants to launch a new direct marketing campaign. She passes her requirements to William who uses the eSourcing tool to issue the request for a proposal (RFP) to the 3 preferred suppliers.

All the suppliers respond but the prices vary greatly. Before William presents the result of the RFP to the marketing team, a number of the marketing managers say that the supplier called Sandringham has the best track record and should be awarded the campaign. William is aware of social proof (note 1) so interrupts the discussion to present his result which shows that Sandringham have proposed the lowest number of days to complete the work. William questions whether the campaign can be delivered in such a short time and after a few minutes evaluating the proposal everyone concludes that Sandringham have not understood one aspect of the requirement.

By contrast, St James have the highest price although they propose the median amount to time. One of the marketing managers comments that St James have a reputation for attracting the best talent by paying them the most. The other marketing managers agree. William explains a Veblen good (note 2), one where a high price boost demand, and that a high price does not necessarily lead to a better campaign.

St James’s proposal provides the marketing team with a price anchor and leads them to select the last of the 3 agencies, Windsor, subject to final agreement on the price.

William contacts the account manager, Harry, from Windsor. Harry explains that they are very busy but their best direct marketing manager has just become available. William is aware of scarcity bias (note 3) so doesn’t panic and asks Harry to look at the price again. Harry responds positively and the next day and William passes the final details to Kate who raises a purchase requisition for Windsor.

This case study illustrated the danger of uncritical acceptance of claims by others. This may be based on the word of one person or of many. By recognising bias and being prepared to challenge it William is able to deliver a better outcome.


(1) Robert Cialdini, Professor of psychology and marketing, persuaded a hotel chain to adapt the message they left in guest’ room trying to encourage towel re-use. He created 3 different messages. The first, his control message, which stated the environmental benefits, was successful among 35% of visitors. The social proof message, in contrasts, simply stated that most people re-used their towels. This version boosted compliance to 44%.

(2) Dan Ariely, Professor of Psychology and Behavioural Economics, recruited 82 people from Craigslist who were willing to receive 2 small electric shocks in the name of science. All participant were given a painkiller; half were told the painkiller cost $2.50 a dose and half that it was only 10 c. In fact, they all received placebos. 85% of those taking the expensive pill reported less pain compared to only 61% taking the cheaper version. The high price of the pill lead to an assumption that it would be more effective.

(3) Stephen Worchel, a psychologist, recruited 134 undergraduates and asked them to rate the quality of a batch of cookies. The participants tasted the cookies from a glass jar containing either 2 or 10 biscuits. When the cookies were in scarce supply they were rated significantly more likeable and attractive. The participants were also prepared to pay 11% more. Scarcity bias means that the less there is the more you want it.

The Oval Office or the press office

In last month’s blog we met William for the first time. He is a category manager for a global organisation and is responsible for a wide range of spend including marketing. Over the years, the number of marketing agencies has proliferated as new people have joined the marketing team and used the agencies they have worked with before. Kate, a team leader who regularly creates purchase requisitions for marketing service, explains to William that there are too many preferred suppliers in the marketing category to make a choice. William realises that he has missed the opportunity to influence Kate’s behaviour and people like her.

To rectify the situation William plans to issue a request for a proposal (RFP) for marketing services. He attends the marketing team meeting and asks them to suggest the scope of an RFP which would deliver the largest saving. The marketing team suggest branding. William is aware of the danger of claimed data (note 1) and so analyses the spend data for the last 12 months. He sees that there is only one brand agency, there were 4 purchase orders and each one was high value. There are, however, 20 direct marketing agencies, 120 purchase orders, and although none of the purchase orders is high value, the total value is over half the total spend of marketing. William presents his data at the next team meeting and manages to convince the marketing team to support a RFP for direct marketing.

As part of the RFP, suppliers are asked to provide a price for a typical scope of work for each of the sub-categories of mail, telephone and internet. One agency, Balmoral, say they offer more than the scope of work. William is aware that Balmoral want to change the competitive set (note 2) so tells them that proposals will be disqualified if they do not comply with the scope.

After 2 days of back-to-back pitches from the suppliers, the marketing team are ready to make a decision. William knows that scores and prices are relative, that is, neither are high or low in absolute terms but is comparison, so puts them into a table and presents them to the marketing team. William summarises the prices and points out that Balmoral has the highest price. The marketing manager, Harry, who uses them the most reacts badly and starts to question the RFP process. William is aware of confirmation bias (note 3) and knows how difficult it is to overturn a negative opinion. He quickly asks the other marketing managers for their opinion of the process and the feedback is overwhelming positive. He then relays the conversation with Balmoral about the scope and jokes that not even the Queen could afford their prices. Harry says that Balmoral often provide more than requested and agrees to try the lower price suppliers.

People don’t have the time or energy to evaluate every decision logically. Instead, they rely on short-cuts to make decisions more quickly. These short-cuts are prone to biases. The rational mind “thinks of itself as the Oval Office when actually it’s the press office” (Jonathan Haidt). William recognises bias and adapts his approach. This results in him having better relationships with key stakeholders and enables him to deliver a better outcome for procurement.


(1) The National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyle (NATSAL) surveyed 15,000 people in 2010 and found that British heterosexual women admit to a mean of 8 sexual partners compared to 12 for men. The difference is logically impossible and illustrates the danger of claimed data.

(2) A quote from Rory Sutherland, Vice Chairman of the Ogilvy & Mather Group gives an example of successful changing the competitive set: “How can Red Bull charge £1.50 a can when Coke only charge 50p? Weirdly you make the can smaller. Suddenly people think this is a different category of drink for which different price points apply.”

(3) Psychologist Albert Hastorf and Hadley Cantril ask 324 spectators to count the number of fouls committed in a game of America football between Princeton and Dartmouth. Spectators were twice as likely to see the opposition commit a foul as they were to spot a foul by their own side illustrating confirmation bias.

Nudge not fudge

A friend of yours, Kate, recently started a new job as a team leader in the head office of a global organisation. She used to work for a small business where she was responsible for all aspects of procurement from negotiating prices to implementing contracts. In her new role as team leader, she will be responsible for placing purchase requisitions and expediting orders. Although this is only a small part of the role she used to have, the value of transactions will be much higher and she’ll have to liaise with lots of different stakeholders.

In the first week of her new job she had a meeting with William from Procurement who explained that the procurement policy states that preferred suppliers should always be used and if suppliers submit an invoice without referring to a purchase order number then it will be returned unpaid. Kate’s team are running low on stationery and there is an urgent requirement for a new online brochure so when she gets back to her desk she logs on to the procurement system to create her first purchase requisitions. She finds the details for 3 preferred suppliers for stationery and a long list of market agencies. The marketing agency she used in her last job is not on the list but she knows that they will be able to deliver quickly. Should she follow William’s advice and contact some of agencies on list or ask the supplier she knows to start work and sort out the purchase requisition later?

William is what behavioural economist like Richard Thaler call a choice architect. William is responsible for organising the context in which people make decisions. By selecting preferred suppliers, he is limiting Kate’s choice. A nudge is any aspect of the choice architecture that alters people’s behaviour in a predictable way. If William had highlighted one of the 3 stationery suppliers he would nudge Kate into selecting that supplier over the other 2.

William is also a choice architect for marketing agencies, however, the situation is different. By providing too many options and insufficient information he has made it difficult for Kate to make a choice. The procurement policy states that preferred suppliers should be used but it’s very difficult to select the best one to do the work. William has fudged the choice architecture which may lead Kate to use a supplier not on the list. Asking a new supplier to start work without a purchase order means that there will be no due diligence, no contract, a problem with payment and an increase the total number of suppliers which will compound the problem further. How can William nudge Kate into making a better choice? He has 4 options:

1. Select preferred suppliers. William could ask each agency to respond to a request for a proposal (RFP) and select the best ones to become preferred suppliers

2. Select one supplier to be the default preferred supplier. If Kate doesn’t select any supplier then the purchase order would be sent to the default supplier automatically. This supplier would either do the work in-house or outsource it. William could ask the larger agencies offering a range of services to respond to a RFP

3. Provide a brief description of each agency and the type of work they specialise in. William could gather the information by asking each agency to respond to a request for information (RFI)

4. Remove agencies with low levels of activity. William should decide the threshold which may be based on spend, number of purchase orders or number of internal customers

Option “1: Select preferred suppliers” is the best choice architecture for Kate and William. Kate is given clear guidance and has the comfort that she is getting the best commercial arrangement. William is able to achieve his savings target and manage the relationships with the preferred suppliers.

Option “2: Select a default supplier” will have many detractors. Marketing professionals will argue that big agencies do not always offer the best solution for all requirements and procurement professionals will say that better pricing can be achieved from regular competition. Whilst both of these arguments are correct, option 2 is better than the current situation because it prevents Kate from succumbing to status quo bias and engaging the agency she used in her last job. William can monitor the spend with the default supplier and re-negotiate a better deal if spend increases.

Options “3: Provide a brief description” and “4: Remove agencies” will help Kate make a decision. Kate will be able to short-list suppliers based on the description and removing agencies will address the just maximise choices strategy. Unfortunately, neither will help William achieve his savings target or protect the organisation commercially, however, it may be enough to stop Kate from creating a new supplier.

By recognising his role as a choice architect, William creates an opportunity to influence Kate’s behaviour and achieve a better outcome for procurement. William may not have enough time to ask all the marketing agencies to respond to a RFP but there a number of other options which will nudge Kate into making a better choice. Hopefully this example illustrates how behavioural economics can help procurement and where a nudge is better than a fudge.

More of my mess for less

Much has been said about public sector outsourcing since Carillion went into liquidation in January this year, me included. The House of Commons Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee report on the matter, After Carillion: Public sector outsourcing and contracting, published on 3 July 2018 pulls no punches.

So what did I learn from reading the report? Below are some interesting facts and quotes:

“The UK Government spends £251.5 billion per year on outsourcing and contracting.”

“The UK spends 13.7% of GDP on public procurement, which is not significantly different from countries such as Denmark (14.16%) or Germany (15.05%).”

“It is unclear how and why the Government decides whether to outsource a particular service. The Government has a process, set out by the Treasury, to make decisions about how it should deliver services and run projects, including evaluating options about whether and how to use the private sector. However, the Government does not always follow its own process. Moreover, the evidence used to support these decisions is thin or non-existent.”

“The Government has deliberately promoted an aggressive approach to risk transfer to the private sector – often even attempting to transfer risks that the government itself has completely failed to analyse or to understand.”

“Government failures in this area have forced government repeatedly to renegotiate contracts with the private sector. Even in the months since the beginning of 2016, departments have already had to renegotiate over £120 million worth of contracts with the private sector. This reflects poorly on government’s effective ability to let and manage contracts.”

“The Government must improve its skills in the negotiation and management of contracts…These commercial skills cannot be seen in isolation either but must be integrated with other skills such as costing, project management, IT capability and financial planning, along with deep and relevant subject knowledge and expertise.”

“The Government admits that its data about contracts internally is poor…which can lead to blind reliance on what companies tell the government, instead of a genuine exchange of information and a continual appraisal of the contractor’s performance over the lifetime of the contract.”

“Contracting and outsourcing with the private sector is a permanent feature of governments in mature economies across the world and it will remain so, whichever government is in power.”

So if the vast, sprawling organisation that is the public sector wants to improve then it must first find a better way to work together.

5. The future of procurement technology and data

AI, algorithms, bots – familiar terms even if we’re not sure what they do or how they impact our daily lives. For most consumers, new technology suggests lower prices. For most employees, it’s a threat to their livelihoods.

This is the final blog in the series about procurement technology and data. In this blog I consider the future.

Despite implementing a variety of procurement technology solutions, I find little evidence that computers are lowering the cost of procurement or making it redundant. Technology, however, is having a profound impact. For all the improvements in technology, such as P2P, eRFX, and analytics, much of it requires significant on-going investment to load data and a detailed understanding of the way the system works in order to interpret the reports.

This begs the question about the future role of procurement and the nature of developing technologies. RIP Procurement or a new dawn?

The Future of Employment: How Susceptible Are Jobs to Computerisation provides some useful insight that can be applied to the procurement profession. Computers have replaced many jobs that are routine, that is, follow explicit rules. Many manufacturing jobs, like those on a production line, are now done by robots. However, as Google and others have shown with autonomous driverless vehicles, computerisation is no longer confined to routine manufacturing tasks. Despite these advances, Moravec’s paradox still applies. Contrary to traditional assumptions, high-level reasoning requires very little computation but low-level sensorimotor skills require enormous computational resources. As Moravec writes, “it is comparatively easy to make computers exhibit adult level performance on intelligence tests or playing checkers, and difficult or impossible to give them the skills of a one-year-old when it comes to perception and mobility”.

Recent technological breakthroughs are, in large part, due to efforts to turn non-routine tasks into well-defined problems. Defining such problems is helped by access to lots of data. The rules for turning left on an empty British road can be defined easily. Turning right on a dual carriage way at rush hour requires the ability to crunch a lot of data quickly.

Looking at CIPS core skills programme the key requirements are partly knowledge based (know the procurement cycle and contract law) and partly skills based (negotiation and performance management). Even a sceptic like me can see how rules could be developed for some core skills and be delivered at a lower cost by a computer.

The days of the traditional roles in procurement of junior buyer (checking purchase orders), buyer (running tenders), category managers (defining the category strategy) are numbered. The future of the procurement lies in specialisation in three areas:

  • Supplier relationship management – recognising those supplier relationships that are critical to the buying organisation and developing strategies to drive the greatest value from them
  • Analytics – analysing big data, identifying trends and applying them in a commercial environment
  • Technology – identifying tasks that can be defined by rules and using computers to do them

Despite the rise of the electronic messaging and social media, verbal and visual interaction will remain a critical factor in building relationships so location must be a consideration. To prevent these specialisms being outsourced to low cost country economies, local procurement professional must be able to demonstrate that they can manage internal and external relationships better. That means that anyone wanting a role in procurement must have emotional intelligence and grit.

The majority of procurement professionals have experienced considerable change during their careers already. New technology means new challenges but I think the procurement profession is well placed to take advantage of it.

4. Up the Amazon without a paddle

This is the fourth in a series of five blogs taking an in-depth look at procurement technology and data. I started by considering the range of procurement technology that is available. This month I compare the customer experience from business to customer (B2C) systems like Amazon to business to business (B2B) or enterprise systems like SAP, Oracle/Ariba and Coupa.

If procurement professionals promise an “Amazon” type experience from their source to contract (S2C) or purchase to pay (P2P) system then they are going to have some disappointed customers. B2C systems look better and are easier to use than P2P systems. But why?

Earlier this year I completed a project to re-launch SAP for a multi-national telecoms company. Improving the user experience was a key part of the P2P scope. Stakeholders said they found the system difficult to navigate and that relevant information was not readily available. Fix the system and we could fix many of the business problems like late payment of suppliers invoices.

With the help of a large technology consultancy, we re-engineered the P2P processes and designed a new user interface (UI) to give a better user experience (UX). To give an example, we simplified the landing page, populated it with frequent tasks like approving requisitions, and created a flashing red bell to alert users when they were required to complete a task.

I’m pleased to say all the work paid off and the UX improved beyond recognition but Amazon it was not! So how did we manage to do such a good job and yet still fail to meet the expectations of many of our stakeholders?

B2C and P2P systems may share many obvious characteristics but there are fundamental differences, namely, the type of items purchased, the regulatory framework and the way the systems are designed.

  • Most B2C systems offer products rather than services. When I searched Amazon for office cleaning services, for example, I was directed to a box set for The Wire, the TV series about a drug and murder investigation in US! With the exception of manufacturing, most businesses purchase more services than products. Furthermore, services are harder to define and deliver. Consequently, P2P systems have to be able to cater for a much more variation and complexity
  • So long as the goods offered on B2C websites comply with relevant consumer legislation (e.g. the Consumer Rights Act 2015 in UK) then no further requirements have to be incorporated. By contrast, businesses have to comply with a wide range of legal and tax regulations which must be built into the system (e.g. general ledger codes are required for financial reporting)
  • Finally, B2C systems are designed to encourage customers to buy, for example, most websites offer to hold your credit card details so it takes just one click to make your purchase. By contract, P2P systems are designed to drive compliance to the company’s policies. One of these policies may be to reduce costs.

Amazon Business was launched in 2015. If it is as successful as the customer offering, then further pressure will be applied to B2B providers. That said, the P2P UX is never going to be as good as “Amazon” because there are so many more requirements to be considered.

Page 2 of 121234510...Last »