Last week, Jon Hansen and I did the second in what will be an ongoing series of ‘Point – Counterpoint’ Blog Talk Radio sessions. Here is how these sessions work: we agree on a topic in advance and then I do my darndest to disagree with Jon for 30 minutes, after which he declares us in agreement. Trust me – the conversations are as entertaining as they are informative.
We did the first point – counterpoint session last month on the consequences of the seminal decision by the Oregon State Supreme Court that executives at Oracle America could be held personally liable for misrepresentations made in the course of carrying out their professional duties. You can hear it on demand here.
This month we talked about contract wins vs. successful implementations – specifically why we hear so much news about the one and so little about the other. But this imbalance isn’t just a reflection on the news sources and analyst firms in our space – we discuss the role the providers and practitioners need to play to make sure procurement is an objectively covered industry.
Among the questions asked and discussed in this session are:
- Why does no one report on actual implementation results – especially when the original contract wins get so much press?
- Which has more to do with the lack of information about implementations: providers that don’t want to risk negative coverage or practitioners that don’t want to share even the best news for fear of revealing too much?
- Is it possible for a news site or resource to report objectively on an industry that they are also dependent upon for revenue?
- Do procurement pros over-rely on analyst first and under-rely on their peers when it comes to getting information about a supplier? Is reversing that likely to be among the changes ushered in by the Millennial generation?
After you listen, feel free to chime in and let us know where you stand on the topic of contract wins vs. implementation successes. Agree or disagree, we can take it. Make yourself heard!