Adil Dittmer

Manta

I help organizations understand their data to make better decisions and measure their impact. 

As part of Equal Opportunity Ventures, we believe helping organizations learn and apply data science will unlock economic opportunity and close opportunity gaps across America.

Head of Customer Success

Success in Black

Success in Black is a community platform promoting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion while elevating Black Customer Success professionals to help them advance their careers.

Founding Team - Content Editor

NCAA

NCAAW Basketball Referee

TestBox

TestBox gives your customers reliable, personalized, AI-generated product demos and instant sandboxes so they can quickly get a hands-on experience with your products solutions

Tropic

Director of Customer Experience

Director of Customer Success

Senior Customer Success Manager

On Deck

On Deck Customer Success (ODCS) is a continuous community for senior CS leaders and operators.

On Deck Customer Success - Founding Fellow

Signal Vine, a Modern Campus Company

FY '20 - 124% NRR (#1 Team Attainment)
FY '19 - 109% NRR

Account Manager

Customer Success Manager

Inside Higher Ed

Account Development Representative, Careers Platform

Phi Gamma Delta

Change Management Consultant/Field Secretary

Virginia Tech

Supervisor, Recreational Sports Intramurals

Experienced Customer Success leader focused on providing strategic value for software companies. My professional interests include leadership theory, revenue growth, fundraising, start-ups, and building community through my work.

CS Consultant

Allma provides a suite of tools that allow companies to seamlessly manage and deploy AI to their employees to ensure consistent and optimal use of AI templates to help accomplish their daily tasks. The Allma platform offers companies the power to save, refine, and collaboratively employ AI templates across their teams.

I am committed to building the reputation and value of procurement in the Tech sector.  I launched a respected procurement organization at Qualtrics by leveraging my global procurement experience from different industries.  I hire great leaders and collaborate with business partners to source and deliver innovative solutions that creatively solve business problems, mitigate risk, improve supplier performance, and make significant contributions to the financial health and performance of the company.

Michael Shields

I'm actually very embarrassed to write this.  

Years ago, and long before she was my wife, Katherine and I worked at the same company.  She was the EA to the CEO.  I was an ambitious procurement guy.  We came up with and executed on an idea that save the company quite a bit of money (by removing a wasteful initiative).  

To my everlasting shame, I did what so many others before me have done.  

I took most of the credit for myself. 

Katherine and I didn't talk to each other after that for several years.  

It wasn't the first time I had a big mistake in my professional career. 

Nor will it be the last.  

Despite the plenty of bumps in my career, I've tried to learn from them.  I'm genuinely proud of the 16 years I've been a procurement guy.  And unsurprisingly, the past few years have been some of the best learnings, and most successful.  

A lot of the credit goes to Katherine.  

Sure she's a supportive spouse.  But more than that, she's challenges my thinking and isn't afraid to tell me about my blind spots (which I have plenty).  She listens to my ideas and then elevates them to a whole new level.  

The bottom line is that I know I'm a much better professional and person because of her. 

P.S. It was fun celebrating her birthday yesterday.... hence the inspiration for the post.

Vice President of Procurement @ Tropic | Spend Management Enthusiast | Speaker | Advisor | Professor. On a mission to change the perception of Procurement. In tech and beyond.

I'm not typically a fan of company swag.  

(and as a procurement guy, I've bought plenty of it for the company). 

But I'd LOVE to know what has landed well with you. 

In my opinion, good swag is something I would wear regularly, whether I'm working or not.  

Some ideas from me: 

I've seen some pretty cool personalized shoes.  

I still have a patagonia jacket that has a very subtle company logo.  I've been rocking that thing for 5+ years.  

My go to suitcase is a branded TUMI.  Love that thing.  

When my company went public, they gave people apple watches with a cool band.  

I'd argue most swag is low-quality and possibly even wasteful.  Hence I'll decline a lot of it.. even if it has my own company's logo on it. 

But there are exceptions. 

What are those for you?

I’m honestly shocked that it feels like not many seem to be talking about this: 

As incredible as AI is, it is already having quite the impact on the environment. 

I used Claude to dig into this (and yes, the irony is not lost on me here). 

The data appears to be quite alarming:

Carbon emissions are considerable.  Energy used per query is as much as 10x that of a google search.  

Corporate pledges are being adjusted.  Apparently Google experienced a significant increase in greenhouse gas emissions attributable to AI growth (causing it to miss key goals from its net-zero plan). 

Water Consumption - companies like Microsoft increased water consumption dramatically (Claude cited Wikipedia and put the figure at 34%). 

Delayed coal plant closures - I need to dig into this some more but apparently coal plants in my area near Salt Lake pushed back retirement by up to a decade. 

E-waste - already one of the fastest growing waste streams in the world is increasing (Claude cited the Sustainable Agency). 

I am NOT anti-AI.  

Nor have I researched the subject in depth. 

Im simply stating that as someone who loves being in nature, I hope we have more conversations about this. 

Related note: 
It’s hard to beat hiking in February in Phoenix.

No alternative text description for this image

Welcome to today’s edition of “sellers say this, but buyers hear that”

Seller says, "It'll work for companies of any size.”

Buyer hears, “Our ICP is basically anyone we can convince to buy. We’ll gladly take your money whether it’s a strong fit or not. That’s why we have CSMs… to deal with the fall out!”

Seller says, “Let me show you what our platform can do.”

Buyer hears, “I’m going to show you the same demo I’ve shown 5 other prospects this week and I'm hoping something will stick.”

Seller says, “It’s an industry best practice”. 

Buyer hears, “I don't really understand your business but this worked somewhere else so maybe it'll work here too.”

Seller says, “This deal expires on DATE”. 

Buyer hears, "I'm desperate to hit quota and if you push hard enough, I can get additional discounts.”

Seller says, “We helped [Big Company] 3x their [vague metric] in 60 days" 

Buyer hears, “One time everything came together and it was actually really cool…. Although I’m exaggerating the numbers to make them sound better.”

Seller says, “it’s on the product roadmap.”

Buyer hears, “I can’t contractually commit to it because even though the product team has talked about it at least once there are 1000 other competing priorities.  But let’s keep our fingers crossed!”

I’m not trying to beat sellers up. I know selling is hard. Hopefully this is helpful and not critical. What you say (and how you say it) is important!  The trust dividend is real. 

Good luck out there. 

Buyers: what did I miss?

P.S. I saw a similar post a few months ago and liked it. But for the life of me, can’t remember who posted it. Whoever you are, thank you for the inspiration.

Using AI to build your own software and replace that expensive tool is SUCH AN AMAZING IDEA!!!

Except sometimes it's a horrible idea.....

Make no mistake, the build / buy topic is HOT right now. 

I don't use superlatives very often but it seems EVERYONE is talking about it.  

In fact, I was an AI procurement topic this week and there were multiple discussions and presentations around this topic.  

But like many things there are two sides of the coin.  

I’m not pro-build. 

I’m not pro-buy. 

I’m squarely in the “it depends on the situation” camp.  

I saw a stat by Business wire that said, “35% of enterprises have already replaced at least one SaaS tool with a custom build, and 78% expect to build more custom internal tools in 2026.”

Clearly this is a legitimate trend worth acknowledging.  

But here’s the other side of the coin: 

Building can be quick. But it requires constant maintenance. Interestingly enough, there is also a trend of companies scrapping a build. (Not quite as sexy and progressive I know).  

The good news is that you forego the annual uplifts. Sure, but are you also giving up the upgrades and progression of the tool? Maintenance is one thing. Roadmap and expansion is another. I’ve heard from multiple people that building for yourself is a lot easier than building for everyone.  

One CFO that I talked to mentioned that adoption for the built tool plummeted (along with ROI). It was buggy and lacked key features. Said another way, your creation might become something that only a parent could love.  

Yet another procurement leader mentioned she’s frustrated that things have slowed down dramatically because of her company’s “build” initiative. She’s constantly in line for technical resources.  

To be clear, I’m actually not posting this so much as “I know the answer” but more “let’s discuss this” (especially the trade-offs). 

I've spent my career trying to measure the total cost of ownership. Turns out, we buyers might need a refresher course as it pertains to AI. 

If we are completely honest with ourselves, "Why buy when I can build?' Might be the wrong question to ask. Perhaps a better question: ‘what are the total costs of buying vs building over a defined period of time. 

Tl:dr. I’m doing some epic things with AI. Truly. I’m not anti-build. Sometimes building is absolutely the right strategy. And sometimes it might just be moving costs around. Or worse, paying a higher price.  

P.S.  My friend Claude and I spend a TON of 1:1 time together (including yesterday on the airplane).  There's something really gratifying seeing all the code pop up on the right as it codes in real time and VERY quickly.

Right next to my Harvard degree, I'm adding "Guest-writer for Newsletters" to my LinkedIn Profile. 

(Okay, okay it wasn't a degree. It was a one-day course and they let me print out a certificate at the end.)

But the newsletter thing is legit.  Tanya has an incredible newsletter called The Procurement Blueprint which thousands subscribe and read every week. 

I wrote about a huge issues that I've faced (as well as many of my peers)... getting buy-in across the organization. 

Honestly, it's not a shocker when I think about the approach that we take sometimes.  

Leading with, "we're going to save you money onthis" might not have the intended effect. 

Imagine you are a stakeholder who is not happy with their current supplier.  If I come to you offering to cut costs, you might think, "gosh that sounds like a great way to make a bad situation worse." 

And stakeholders who actually do like their current supplier hear, "we're going to squeeze the people you have a great relationship with.  I'll beat them up and then walk away leaving you to have to work with them."

Also not great...

I break down an alternative approach in the newsletter. 

FWIW, my mom subscribed last night.  And she said that I can quote her.  "It's the best article ever written in any procurement newsletter I've ever read."

So obvs you should check it out.  

https://lnkd.in/exN7Tz6D

I also got a glowing review fro Claude.  I'll include that in the comments if you need yet another endorsement.

Open article: the Procurement Blueprint by theprocurementblueprint.beehiiv.com

As a buyer, optionality is so powerful. 

The problem is that so few put themselves in a position where they have true options. 

Simple real life example: 

I’m often surprised at my options when it comes to ride-sharing. 

I landed in SLC on Wednesday evening at 8:40 and opened up one app. 

$78 to get home.  

(Pricey!)

I open the second app and its $34.

Same destination.  (Not to mention the same hit or miss aspect of driver and car.)

I’ll take it. 

But I’m genuinely curious…. How many people take the 15 seconds to check the second app? 

And in business, how many people truly develop a genuine, comparable and second option?  The answer to both questions is likely, “less common than you think”.  

P.S.  I plugged this post into an LLM and it wanted me to include a line saying:
“A second credible option.  That’s not just comparison. That’s leverage.”  🤢 🤮

This was the biggest unlock for me when it came to improving my prompting.  

(not kidding, in a legit, meaningful way). 

I stopped writing my own prompts.  I'd fire up Claude and have him create a prompt instead. 

"Claude, I need help creating a prompt to do X."  And then I would just start word-vomiting without concern for structure or format. 

And what comes out is a beautiful prompt that I can plug into cowork. 

The prompt is better but then the result ends up being much better.  It has compounding effects. 

Perhaps this is elementary for you AI wizards, but for me it was a catalyst for improving my prompting basically overnight.

Here's something kind of crazy.  As a procurement guy, I've been involved in quite a few buying processes so far in Q1.  I'm talking completely different categories, different products for different stakeholders.  

And (this is the crazy part) somehow many of them are feeling eerily similar.  Like I've heard / seen it before.

(and that's not a good thing).  

Generic outreach.  Standard discovery.  One-size-fits-all demo.  Recycled marketing proof points.  

And then throw in a surprisingly rigid sales motion that seems more intent on solving the sellers problem than ours as the buyer.  

We can spot it right away.  And it kills trust and momentum because we aren't looking for a generic solution.  We are looking for something that will look for us and our unique situation.  

It's the age of the generic sales process (and it's getting worse because of how AI is being used). 

Here's a potential fix:

The sellers use AI to go deeper instead of wider.  They show up more prepared in a way that shows how their solution sovles our problem.  

AI allows for incredible customization and efficiency in a scalable manner. 

Tailored outreach.  Efficient discovery.  A demo that shows parts of the product that are tied to our decision criteria.  ROI stats that are logical, believable and support the demo that was just shown. 

And a sales process that maps to our buying process. 

I saw an example of this in Q1 as well.  It just wasn't as often as the generic versions. 

Generic is easy... but it's less effective. 
Specific is a bit harder but leads to out-sized results. 

In either situation, for us buyers, it's never been easier to spot the difference.

taplio

The Battle

Adil Dittmer

Michael Shields

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance ScoreMichael Shields's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

taplio

The Battle

Adil Dittmer

Michael Shields

Followers

Posts

Engagements

Likes

Performance Score.css-goub6s{font-size:var(--chakra-fontSizes-md);font-weight:500;color:var(--chakra-colors-gray-600);display:block;margin-top:var(--chakra-space-1);}Michael Shields's LinkedIn Performance

Ready to grow your LinkedIn presence?

Performance ScoreMichael Shields's LinkedIn Performance