My colleague Peter Smith of Spend Matters UK/Europe has the news that CPO Agenda is shutting down. While CIPS has tried to spin the death of CPO Agenda by suggesting it will be launching a new publication titled Supply Business (supposedly aimed at finance and other business stakeholders outside of procurement), we see it in a different light. But first the news and some context. In the above-linked post, Peter observes:
CPO Agenda was launched back in Spring 2005 by CIPS (the Chartered Institute of Purchasing and Supply) in partnership with Redactive Publishing, under editor Geraint John. It was intended to be the "Harvard Business Review" of the procurement world, a quarterly journal that would feature deeper, longer, more academic articles than Supply Management. Looking back at that first issue, there are excellent articles from Professor Andrew Cox; Jon Hughes with a typically content-dense and insightful piece; two articles from partner – level consultants (at AT Kearney and Booz Allen Hamilton); and a thoughtful but pragmatic article from a top practitioner (Neil Deverill) on supplier relationships. But at the recent CIPS Conference, the demise of the publication was announced
We'll turn our attention to Supply Business later, but first we should look at why CPO Agenda ultimately failed. One of the reasons Peter observes is that CIPS banned anyone remotely seen as competitive as participating in the CPO Agenda ecosystem. Curiously, before Spend Matters were seen as competitors to CPO Agenda with the launch of Spend Matters UK/Europe, we actually contributed to earlier volumes! So we can confirm this official policy by CIPS/Redactive, a topic Peter further explores in his post. From our perspective on this side of the Atlantic, besides restricting contributions from those who competed in any manner against CIPS (perceived or real), the main reason CPO Agenda failed was because the editorial quality declined considerably.
To be continued ...