Procurement is where good technology goes to die
Every founder eventually has the same experience. You win the room. The people who will actually use the thing are enthusiastic, the demo went well, the problem is real and you clearly solve it. Then the process starts, and nine months later a competitor you consider inferior has the contract. The usual explanation is that the buyer was incompetent or the incumbent had relationships. Sometimes…
Good technology often fails in the procurement stage, despite initial enthusiasm and a clear solution to a problem. The reason lies in the procurement process itself, which is designed to manage risk and provide defensible decisions rather than maximise value. This focus on defensibility leads to a reduction of anything that cannot be scored, making factors like product usability, superior support, and long-term architecture less important.
The process is also influenced by factors such as years in business, employee count, certifications held, reference customers, and yes/no features, which are trivial to score but do not necessarily reflect the quality of the product. Moreover, procurement selects based on what has been written in requirements, which may not reflect the true needs of the organisation, and it favours the risk owner's perspective, leading to a focus on potential failure modes rather than overall success.
To succeed in procurement, a product must be present before requirements are set, help shape the understanding of the problem, provide clear and vendor-neutral technical requirements, and prepare risk mitigation plans in advance. Recognising the limitations of procurement and understanding its motivations can help technology providers navigate these challenges and increase their chances of winning contracts.
Written by urgent.news from Dev.to's reporting — not their text. Machine-written — may contain errors; check the original before relying on it.
