Strategic Sourcing Decisions

If sourcers aren't a part of your talent intelligence strategy, how complete is your strategy and what are you missing? I had an interesting discussion with a client the other day - they're looking to build a world-class talent intelligence function and were asking how to get granular data and insights. Companies often overlook a valuable source of insights: the conversations they have with every potential candidate, whether or not they progress through the hiring process. Even brief email exchanges with candidates who decline interest can provide meaningful information. These interactions are a rich source of market intelligence that many organizations fail to capture and analyze. Not every organization employs dedicated sourcers, but recruiters who actively engage in sourcing activities can collect vital market intelligence through their candidate interactions. Organizations that depend exclusively on inbound applications from recruitment marketing and employee referrals face a significant limitation: they only capture insights from candidates who apply. While analyzing inbound applicant data is valuable, it represents just one segment of the potential talent pool. Without active sourcing, companies miss out on understanding the broader talent market, including passive candidates' motivations and targeted competitor insights. Here's the bottom line: every candidate interaction - whether successful or not - can yield valuable market intelligence. Organizations that systematically capture and analyze these insights gain a significant competitive advantage in understanding talent markets, competitor dynamics, and their own employer value proposition. #sourcing #talentintelligence

The AI ecosystem is becoming increasingly diverse, and smart organizations are learning that the best approach isn't "open-source vs. proprietary"—it's about choosing the right tool for each specific use case. The Strategic Shift We're Witnessing: 🔹 Hybrid AI Architectures Are Winning While proprietary solutions like GPT-4, Claude, and enterprise platforms offer cutting-edge capabilities and support, open-source tools (Llama 3, Mistral, Gemma) provide transparency, customization, and cost control. The most successful implementations combine both—using proprietary APIs for complex reasoning tasks while leveraging open-source models for specialized, high-volume, or sensitive workloads. 🔹 The "Right Tool for the Job" Philosophy Notice how these open-source tools interconnect and complement existing enterprise solutions? Modern AI systems blend the best of both worlds: Vector databases (Qdrant, Weaviate) for data sovereignty, cloud APIs for advanced capabilities, and deployment frameworks (Ollama, TorchServe) for operational flexibility. 🔹 Risk Mitigation Through Diversification Smart enterprises aren't putting all their eggs in one basket. Open-source options provide vendor independence and fallback strategies, while proprietary solutions offer reliability, support, and advanced features. This dual approach reduces both technical and business risk. The Real Strategic Value: Organizations are discovering that having optionality is more valuable than any single solution. Open-source tools provide: • Cost optimization for specific use cases • Data control and compliance capabilities • Innovation experimentation without vendor constraints • Backup strategies for critical systems Meanwhile, proprietary solutions continue to excel at: • Cutting-edge performance for complex tasks • Enterprise support and reliability • Rapid deployment with minimal setup • Advanced features that take years to replicate What This Means for Your Strategy: • Technical Teams: Build expertise across both open-source and proprietary tools • Product Leaders: Map use cases to the most appropriate solution type • Executives: Think portfolio approach—not vendor lock-in OR vendor avoidance The winning organizations in 2025-2026 aren't the ones committed to a single approach. They're the ones with the most strategic flexibility in their AI toolkit. Question for the community: How are you balancing open-source and proprietary AI solutions in your organization? What criteria do you use to decide which approach fits each use case?

Never judge a business by its front office but by its back-end logistics. Managing sourcing across India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh has taught me that logistics isn't just about moving boxes—it's what makes or breaks a retail operation. Here's why: The global logistics market hit $9.2 trillion in 2023, with Asia-Pacific contributing 42% of this value (McKinsey Global Institute). Yet, companies lose 20-30% of their logistics costs to inefficiencies. (McKinsey & Company) The real cost of weak logistics shows up in: → Inventory Stockouts: 8.3% of retail sales are lost to out-of-stock situations, costing retailers $1 trillion annually (IHL Group)  → Dead Stock: The average retailer ties up 25% of working capital in excess inventory (Gartner)  → Broken Promises: 69% of customers won't shop with a retailer again after a late delivery (Retail TouchPoints)  → Emergency Shipping: Rush shipping can cost 5-10x more than standard rates (Deloitte) In 2024, due to various disruptions in logistics caused by war, instability, and climate change-induced natural disasters, I witnessed firsthand how fragile supply chains can be. Geopolitical turmoil, including events like the Red Sea Crisis and the Ukraine conflict, further exacerbated these disruptions, underscoring the critical need for resilient and adaptable supply chain strategies. Companies with robust logistics weathered the storm, while others faced existential crises. Today's successful businesses need: 📌 Strategic warehouse placement near key markets 📌Real-time inventory tracking across locations 📌Multiple transport routes for critical supplies 📌Robust risk mitigation plans In my experience, managing an annual sourcing volume of $100 million, the difference between profit and loss often comes down to one question: Can you get your product where it needs to be when it needs to be there? What's your biggest logistics challenge? Share your experience below. #SupplyChain #LogisticsManagement

Your deals are stalling because you're tracking the wrong things. I just watched another rep lose a "sure thing" deal. Had budget, authority, need, timeline... all the BANT boxes checked. Still lost. Here's the problem: BANT tells you if someone CAN buy. It doesn't tell you if they WILL buy. Same with MEDDIC. Better than BANT, but it's still focused on what WE need to qualify them, not how THEY actually make buying decisions. So I created something different. The ADVANCED method that was inspired by Nate Nasralla. A - Acknowledged Problem  D - Documented Issue V - Validated by Team  A - Authorized by Executive  N - Narrowed to External  C - Chosen as Vendor  E - Established Timeline  D - Deal Terms Finalized This isn't another qualification framework. This is how complex B2B buyers actually progress through their decision making process. I break down all 8 stages in the carousel below, but here's why this works: Each stage has predictable win rates. Stage 0-1 deals close at 10-20%. Stage 6-7 deals close at 80-90%. Unlike other frameworks, ADVANCED tracks buyer behavior, not seller activities. It shows you exactly how deep you are in THEIR process. I even updated my entire pipeline to match this framework. Now I know the real probability of every deal closing... not just my gut feeling. Most importantly? It tells you what needs to happen next. No more guessing. If you're tired of "sure thing" deals that never close, maybe it's time to track what actually matters. Stop measuring what's convenient for you. Start measuring how your buyers actually buy. BTW. Can you honestly say where each of your deals stands using these 8 stages? If not, you're flying blind. The best reps know exactly where they stand. Now you can too. — Want to progress through these stages faster? Master multithreading with this free 100-min masterclass: https://lnkd.in/gYbk_Y2v

If you don't have a Champion, then you can't qualify the Decision Process. If you can't qualify the Decision Process then you can't qualify the deal. And if you can't qualify the deal, then you can't justify investing your time and resources into it (let alone putting it anywhere near a forecast 😬). This is just one of the reasons why we say #NAMIE (Not All MEDDIC Is Equal). So many sellers consider the Decision Process in isolation from other letters. 🚨 𝗧𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗺𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗮𝗸𝗲 🚨 The Decision Process 𝗜𝗦𝗡'𝗧 the process of 𝗧𝗛𝗘 decision to buy your solution or not. It's the customers' process of making 𝗠𝗨𝗟𝗧𝗜𝗣𝗟𝗘 decisions throughout an engagement: • Whether to evaluate a solution in the first place? • Which vendors to involve? • Which stakeholders to involve? • What should be in the Decision Criteria? (𝘛𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘯𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭, 𝘌𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘢𝘭, 𝘙𝘦𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴𝘩𝘪𝘱) • How will the vendors be evaluated?  (𝘋𝘦𝘮𝘰? 𝘙𝘍𝘐/𝘗? 𝘗𝘖𝘊? 𝘗𝘖𝘝? 𝘙𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳𝘦𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘴?) • What are the steps for technical approval? • What are the steps for business approval? • How will the business case be constructed?  (𝘝𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘰𝘳? 3𝘳𝘥 𝘱𝘢𝘳𝘵𝘺? 𝘐𝘯𝘵𝘦𝘳𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺?) • What are the formal steps?  (𝘚𝘦𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺, 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘶𝘳𝘦𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵, 𝘓𝘦𝘨𝘢𝘭, 𝘦𝘵𝘤.) • What are the steps from Business and Technical approval to signature? And so so many more... And every company and engagement will be different... 𝗛𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲 𝘄𝗵𝘆: The Decision Process needs a 𝗖𝗵𝗮𝗺𝗽𝗶𝗼𝗻 to advise, confirm, and support its progress. The Decision Process must connect to the value elements of 𝗜𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻𝘀, 𝗠𝗲𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗰𝘀, and 𝗗𝗲𝗰𝗶𝘀𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗖𝗿𝗶𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗶𝗮 to ensure consensus on the unique value your solution can bring to EVERY stakeholder and ensure urgency remains. The Decision Process must connect to the 𝗖𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻. Not just the rival solutions but competing initiatives, so your deal doesn't get de-prioritized. The Decision Process must include the 𝗘𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗼𝗺𝗶𝗰 𝗕𝘂𝘆𝗲𝗿's sponsorship. The Decision Process must align with the 𝗰𝗼𝗺𝗽𝗲𝗹𝗹𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁, ideally the customer's or, at worst, an event you have created based upon customer value (𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘢 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘯𝘵'𝘴 𝘴𝘢𝘬𝘦). And, of course, the Decision Process and 𝗣𝗮𝗽𝗲𝗿 𝗣𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝘀𝘀 are like two best friends that should go everywhere together in step 🤝. The best bit of all? Your Champion is highly unlikely to be a professional buyer. They won't know the best approach to buying a solution like yours. This creates an opportunity for professional sellers to position themselves as trusted advisors by helping curate and map out the Decision Process with their customers. Did I miss anything? 🤔 What are your tips for building a solid and collaborative Decision Process? #MEDDIC #MEDDICC #MEDDPICC #DecisionProcess #Sales  

Mobility & Transparency: The New Foundation for Modern Travel Management, as Shared from the Stage at HRS’ Paris Corporate Lodging Forum Many companies still rely on legacy, air-centric travel management models. These outdated structures no longer match how employees travel or how companies want to manage spend. New, AI-driven solutions now make it possible to capture and analyze travel data with far more precision. But the reality: most organizations still struggle with fragmented systems, isolated data, and processes that don’t connect. This challenge was a central theme at HRS’ Corporate Lodging Forum in Paris. The conversation focused on one point: companies that do not modernize their accommodation strategy are losing significant funds across transient, meetings, long stays, and on-site services. In Paris, we discussed with clients and partners what causes the lack of transparency in these areas. The root problem is not technical. It is architectural. Today’s infrastructure was built for air travel and never intended to support integrated mobility. Even newer booking engines and GDS solutions still replicate the old silos. As a result, hotel-related spend often escapes oversight. In some global programs, up to 80% of relevant spend remains untracked. This creates operational blind spots and leads to downstream issues for travelers. It also limits the effectiveness of policy adjustments and supplier management. At HRS, we believe that the underlying architecture needs to change. That is why we are introducing AI-powered solutions like Copilot and Connect. These are not just features. They enable a new logic for corporate travel: data-driven, strategy-aligned, and able to translate company goals into tangible results. The aim is not just to automate. It is to align processes for better business outcomes. The shift is already visible. Siemens and FORVIA have shown how integrated programs can lower ADR and improve CO₂ reporting. Airbus is making user experience a procurement target, not a byproduct. T-Mobile achieves 99% compliance in high-frequency workflows through full-cycle automation. These are not test runs. These are operational models in daily use. Fragmentation is rarely a technical problem. It is a consequence of repeated decisions: using local workarounds, focusing booking tools on air while much of the spend is elsewhere, or letting travel, procurement, and finance run separately. Progress in corporate mobility requires a fundamental rethink of what should be connected—and why. The discussions and examples from the Paris CLF illustrate how leading companies are already putting this into practice. For those looking to move beyond old structures, the full sessions are available on demand and provide tangible insights into what integration can achieve today: https://okt.to/r2YzKT

Demand forecasting is the process of using information to make informed future customer demand estimations over a specific period. There are two main types of Demand Forecasting: 𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞 and 𝐐𝐮𝐚𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐭𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐯𝐞. Qualitative focuses on using expert opinions and information gathered from the field, and quantitative uses data and analytical tools to create predictions. 𝐇𝐨𝐰 𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐭 𝐝𝐢𝐟𝐟𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐧 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐥𝐚𝐧𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠? Demand forecasting is a process for determining what is likely to happen, while demand planning is the operationalization to make it happen. It is taking that forecast and ensuring that each stage of the supply chain operates accordingly, ideally with the most efficiency and lowest cost. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐨𝐬𝐭 𝐨𝐟 𝐢𝐧𝐚𝐜𝐜𝐮𝐫𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠:  How much does a 1% Reduction in forecasting error save your company? According to the Institute of Business Planning and Forecasting, the average computer/tech company saves $𝟗𝟕𝟎,𝟎𝟎𝟎 a year by reducing the error of under-forecasting, and $𝟏.𝟓 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 in over-forecasting. And this number goes up for consumer product companies: $𝟑.𝟓 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 for a 1% improvement in under-forecasting and $𝟏.𝟒𝟑 𝐦𝐢𝐥𝐥𝐢𝐨𝐧 for over-forecasting. (Source: https://lnkd.in/e_NJNevk) 𝐈𝐦𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐯𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐃𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐧𝐠: From my personal experience, most companies run under 60% accuracy for demand forecasting. As an industry we can do a lot better! The best way to improve demand forecasting is through utilizing lots of data sources (internal and external), and taking advantage of ML to identify meaningful correlations. Working with a global steel, bulk container, and packaging manufacturer, Prevedere, one of Microsoft’s partners, generated predictive models with a 98.4% average 12-month forecast accuracy across the projected product lines and country. So yes, it can be done 😀 ****************************************** • Follow #JeffWinterInsights to stay current on Industry 4.0 and other cool tech trends • Ring the 🔔 for notifications!

CFO: "You delivered £10M savings. Next year we'll make your target £12M." Procurement: "Okay, we'll do our best" 🤷♂️ That trap that turns smart procurement leaders into basic purchasers. That isn't strategy. It's wishful thinking. Here is the problem: When Procurement exists only to deliver a number, everything else collapses. → Savings without context are risky. → Savings without TCO or risk weighting are misleading. → Savings without value creation, capability building, supplier performance or ROI are pointless. And when teams deliver against unrealistic targets, those targets only get bigger. The credibility trap tightens. I've seen this too often. Savings get harder year on year. → Short term cuts appear. → Bad decisions sneak in. → Category maturity is ignored. → Supplier performance is sacrificed. → The business pays more in the long run. There is a better way. A more grown up way. — Try this instead in your objectives setting: 1. Define your vision and strategy ➟ Why does Procurement exist for this business? ➟ Where do you want the function to be in two to five years? ➟ What is your unique value? 2. How do you create value beyond cost? A clear strategy stops the team drifting into reactive purchasing. ➟ Align your objectives with the business ➟ Interview stakeholders. ➟ Map problems and aspirations. ➟ Understand commercial priorities. When your objectives reflect the real needs of the business, you stop chasing artificial targets and start unlocking real value. 3. Deliver a multi tiered value matrix Any function measured on a single metric will eventually fail. Track the value that actually matters: ➟ Cost. ➟ Value and ROI. ➟ Risk mitigation. ➟ ESG impact. ➟ User feedback. ➟ Supplier performance. If the business only sees savings, that's because Procurement only talks about savings. 4. Push back on poor behaviour Respect your stakeholders but don't be ruled by them. ➟ Challenge bad assumptions. ➟ Call out unrealistic expectations. ➟ Have the uncomfortable conversations. ➟ This is what separates a strategic function from an order taker. Here's the truth most teams avoid: Procurement doesn't fall into the savings trap because the answer is complicated. It falls in because the trap is comfortable. It's easy to chase a number. It's harder to define value. It's harder to change expectations. It's harder to lead. But the teams that escape the trap become the teams that transform their organisations. Any ideas why so many still stay stuck? —— P.S. want to join 22,000+ procurement pros getting FREE insights from me every week? Join here https://procurebites.com/

We scraped Google Maps photos of 2,000 bakeries and used AI to detect bread-making machines 🥖 Sounds insane, right?   But this is exactly the kind of custom signal that’s replacing generic intent data in 2026.   Everyone’s buying the same intent data. Which means everyone’s reaching out to the same prospects, at the same time, with the same “personalized” message.   Which means you are always standing in the same line with your competition.   Here’s what changed our entire GTM approach at SalesCaptain: We stopped relying on off-the-shelf signals. and started building our own.   Not: – Hiring intent from ZoomInfo – Funding announcements from Crunchbase – Sales Navigator filters everyone else is using   Instead, we built signals only we had access to. Here are some real-life examples from our client work:   1. Wellness and self-care software company 💇♀️ - Scraped Google Maps + websites for salons/spas - Detected multiple locations or recent expansions - Identified operators outgrowing spreadsheets/manual tools - Triggered outreach during operational scaling Result: 400+ positive replies in 5 months 2. Cybersecurity company 🥷 – Monitored public breach reports in real time – Identified relevant security teams – Reached out while the problem was active Result: $200K+ ACV meetings in a single quarter 3. Recruitment platform 💼 – Scraped job listings across multiple sources – Identified companies actively hiring – Matched HR decision-makers to real demand Result: 710+ demo calls in 10 months These aren’t signals you can buy from a vendor. They’re competitive advantages built from: – Custom data sources – AI enrichment of unstructured data – Community, ecosystem, and event signals The pattern I see across every high-performing GTM team: They don’t ask, “Which intent tool should we buy?” They ask, “What data would give us an unfair advantage competitors can’t access?” Then they build it! If you want to design custom signals for your market and orchestrate them across sales, marketing, and ops, you know where to find me. 😎

Procurement: Treat suppliers as extensions of your enterprise, not transactions. Procurement Excellence | 23 NOV 2025 - In complex global markets, resilient supply chains demand partnerships built on shared destiny, not just contracts. Here are 9 Steps to Create Long-Term Supplier Partnerships: #1. Transparent Communication ↳ Co-develop comms protocols e.g. QBR ↳ Clearly share expectations, goals & challenges #2. Long-Term Contracts ↳ Replace short-term with multi year agreements. ↳ Share long-term roadmaps & cost-savings initiatives. #3. Shared Performance Metrics ↳ Jointly agree and track SMART KPIs. ↳ Define escalation paths & RCA templates #4. Early Supplier Involvement ↳ Involve and recognize vendor’s contributions. ↳ Include key suppliers in product development cycles. #5. Guarantee Timely Payments ↳ Automate payment & consider early payment discounts. ↳ Audit internal processes for bottlenecks. #6. Co-Create Innovation ↳ Create supplier ideation portals & protect IP collaboratively. ↳ Fund joint proof-of-concept projects. #7. Recognize & Reward Excellence ↳Formally acknowledge & reward outstanding suppliers. ↳Bronze (Operational Excellence), Silver (Innovation), Gold (Strategic Impact). #8. Uphold Fairness & Ethics ↳ Interactions & contractual terms are mutually beneficial. ↳ Ensure cost pressures don't force unethical labor. #9. Jointly Manage Risks ↳ Jointly identify risks & develop contingency plans. ↳ Map tier-2/3 suppliers collaboratively. In today's volatile market, Resilient supply chains are built on deep, strategic supplier partnerships. Achieving lasting, mutually beneficial supplier partnerships requires: ✅️ Deliberate strategy ✅️ Centered on trust ✅️ Shared objectives ✅️ Continuous collaboration ♻️ Repost if you find this helpful. ➕️ Follow Frederick for Procurement insights. #ProcurementExcellence #SupplierCollaboration