Check out a video we previously posted on this subject here.
In the first post in this quick-hit series looking at SciQuest, I provided some very high-level background on where SciQuest sits in the overall Spend Management and eProcurement market. I’ll continue the high-level analysis in this post, looking at a range of areas, beginning with the customer environment that typifies transactional buying in life sciences (especially within an R&D context), higher education and healthcare. In my experience, the purchasing environment that pervades these sectors is marked by a culture that abhors mandates. I could argue that these cultures marks the logical and complete extension of decentralized buying with centralized rule sets, but quite often, it’s one where practitioner, researcher, scientist and physician preference for many items and services outweighs the ability of a small procurement organization to create a center-led environment with decentralized controls.
In this context, those who do the buying will always find a way to purchase what they want. In the most extreme example, a researcher at a university may opt to purchase only a certain type of laboratory equipment, at a specified amount, because they believe they need to purchase planned items at the price they requested at the time of submitting third-party grants (which are often funded by outside parties like the NIH). So what does the price matter to them, you might ask?