It’s fair to say that, after almost 40 years practicing, leading, consulting, training, and lecturing in #procurement, it no longer carries the interest for me it once had. I’ve been thinking for a while about why this is the case with the question has it changed, or have I? /1

I’ve been incredibly lucky. Fortunate to be picked-up by one of the World’s best procurement operations early on, then to have worked and led teams in some of the most pioneering sectors for procurement practice. But I also studied some of the more advanced methods. Hard. /2

Some of today's procurement folks think they're God's Gift. Some of them think they're asking questions no one else has ever thought of. And yet they seemingly have little understanding of the history of their profession. I think it's time for that history lesson. /3

I think I’ll name this thread ‘How CIPS Snatched Defeat from the Jaws of Victory’. /4

Purchasing (the discipline) had its base in negotiation. Smart commercial negotiators would secure advantages for their employers in dealings with suppliers, securing savings that could mean the difference between the company making a profit or a loss. /5

However, relying on negotiating competence meant the outcome was too unpredictable. Some pros were simply outsmarted on their off days, at great cost to the company. But sometimes companies had structural advantages that even the best negotiators couldn't overcome. /6

'Strategic sourcing' was soon developed - the idea of grouping like items together to (1) improve leverage via higher volumes and (2) to enable buyers to develop specialist knowledge to more efficiently identify savings and other value improvements in specific supply chains. /7

The then ‘IPS’ was providing a diploma-level qualification for those interested in developing their skills, although with low barriers to entry, Purchasing staff were often under-qualified and yet sufficiently skilled (if not necessarily expert) in the job. /8

Strategic Sourcing became the way most Purchasing organisations would aim to operate. The method later morphed into 'Category Management' taking-in the more interventionist post-contract Supplier Relationship Management (SRM) and which included performance management. /9

'Strategic Sourcing' had piqued the interest of practitioners who were looking for a more systematic approach that, importantly, and following its application, could provide more predictable results. Many companies tried it, and with success. Purchasing began to get noticed. /10

Purchasing also caught the attention of academics who began to study its underlying principles, tapping-into research from other business areas (e.g. manufacturing, logistics), but also psychology, negotiation (as research expanded there), economics, design, and marketing. /11

These researchers started to develop an overarching theory of Purchasing defining, for the first time, what 'world class' and 'best practice' looked like. They underpinned these models with primary research of their own, creating a new body of knowledge called 'Procurement'. /12

This body of knowledge grew with experimentation and real-world testing. There was no shortage of good ideas in the field, but the KEY QUESTIONS became ‘what worked, and under which circumstances?’ How does the pro decide which course(s) of action are appropriate? /13

Key Point: From the myriad of ‘good ideas’ available to procurement pros in managing supply chains, which of them have a clear causal relationship with short, medium, and long-term success of the business or institution? Which of them are ‘must-dos’, rather then ‘like-to-dos’./14

A fresh notion of ‘procurement competence’ emerged. How can professionals determine the optimum course(s) of action under unique and dynamic circumstances, and yet still provide predictable results? Predictability of outcome being a key indicator of strategy efficacy. /15

Procurement competence was seen to be something that decision-makers across business needed to embrace, not only the functional specialists. A ‘whole-enterprise competence’, no less. Better to skill-up a CIO in managing a software supplier than a junior category manager. /16

During this period, the professional body (IPS) gained Chartered status. It had long-desired to become the gatekeeper to the profession, to protect members who had invested in its diploma, but also to elevate its status and restrict the number of non-qualified practitioners. /17

This wasn’t going to happen overnight, so the Chartered status helped in marketing the profession both to practitioners, and to senior executives from other functions. The intention was to ensure the profession was taken seriously so its strategic impact could be recognised. /18

CIPS membership started to grow significantly. It also decided to put itself at the leading edge of research into practice by funding research into procurement matters by business school professors as well as doing its own less-rigorous (but still useful) research. /19

The profession attracted more & better talent and its influence on business grew, with growing percentages of 3rd party spend and as CFOs endorsed outsourcing initiatives often with the involvement of Procurement. The profession was 'on the map' possibly for the first time. /20

The CPO role became established and, in some sectors, the CPO became a senior leadership team member. A truism emerged during this period, and that is that the best procurement organisations are the ones that HAVE TO BE GOOD - typically low-margin/high variety businesses. /21

This naturally meant that sectors like automotive, consumer electronics, retail, and some others secured their reputation as procurement leaders (or pioneers for advanced practice). Perform poorly at procurement in these sectors and you don’t have a business. /22

In other sectors (often ‘service’ ones), and despite the sometimes large spend figures, procurement remains something of a sideshow. It has a greater potential for notoriety when things go wrong than for any celebration of its successes. Underappreciated pros reside here. /23

Many other practitioners tried to emulate the best, benchmarking and copying seemingly good practices from these sectors. But what worked in one place, didn’t work under different circumstances, and improvement initiatives more often than not fell short of expectations. /24

Business Schools began to take over from CIPS as lead educators in the field (their research provided them with deeper insights and developing the notion of ‘advanced practice’). This left CIPS with its diploma, no longer the exclusive ‘custodian’ of procurement knowledge. /25

Institutions such as Birmingham, Bath, Cranfield and others had all created successful Masters programmes in Procurement and/or Supply Chain Management as a step-up from the established CIPS Diploma, fostering a small but influential procurement elite. /26

Along with its mid-level education offer, CIPS pursued membership growth and global expansion. This proved a money-spinner, so much so that today, many believe CIPS no longer has any pretensions towards providing leading edge knowledge and skill development. /27

CIPS membership numbers (even with annual attrition) and the Diploma appear to be the bedrock of its business. In addition to the business schools, competitors like Procurement Leaders and Procurious have eaten into CIPS marketspace. Where next for CIPS?, you might ask. /28

After several years CIPS stopped funding research by the business schools and a growing disregard developed between advanced practitioners and the CIPS offer. At one point it was suggested to me that FTSE250 Heads of Procurement with MCIPS was a low as 5%. Hardly essential. /29

But this thread is not only about CIPS. It’s about the profession as a whole. Procurement has always been open to talent from other functions, regardless of formal qualifications, and today many CPOs are ambivalent about the benefits of specialist procurement education. /30

Understandably some practitioners who thought that CIPS ‘Chartered’ status would be (1) a ticket to an exclusive club and (2) provide a genuine gatekeeping role to the profession, are disappointed to learn CIPS really isn’t the profession’s pinnacle. /31

As an aside, CIPS' own ‘Supply Management’ had previously been the go-to journal for the curious. Research write-ups, complex and robust debates between experts, full of nerdy riches. Nowadays, its content-light style compares unfavourably to those generic in-flight magazines./32

Many of the academic pioneers have now retired and much of their research activity has all but retired with them. The profession is not being intellectually stretched as it once was. Instead, standardised consultancy ‘me-too’ methods and tech solutions are all the rage. /33

Those tech solution providers aim to 'systematise' procurement and exploit economies of scale in developing software packages that can be deployed across many sectors. At their heart, these packages are a good idea, but user satisfaction levels are reportedly modest to poor. /34

Tech providers have soaked-up the bandwidth of procurement decision-makers, and consultants have re-hashed a whole range of ideas in their efforts to gain attention in what has become an over-supplied market. Few of these ideas have proven causality in business success. /35

Themes of collaboration and partnership, risk mgt (recently shown to fall short during Covid-19), are being supplemented by themes de jour like 'diversity' and sustainability, often tick-box exercises and certainly easier to ‘deliver’ than tangible savings/value improvements. /36

Such zeitgeist initiatives are pitched as 'new' & innovative', but are merely 'me-too' ideas being tried by everyone else. They're a grab-bag of ideas initiated by people with good intentions, but who lack the evidence to declare them genuine predictors of business success. /37

And despite ticking all the right zeitgeist boxes, Procurement's influence continues to be in the doldrums, with Board-level status, for most, unachieved. And in a cruel twist of fate, CPOs appear destined to seeing their procurement teams replaced by procurement tech. /38

I’m mostly pessimistic about Procurement’s future. I believe it has peaked as a specialist competency, and is failing as an enterprise-wide one. The absence of first-principle thinkers, and the ‘me-too’ initiatives unproven to predict success, smells like mundanity & decline. /39

As much as I wish those dedicated procurement pros well, I’d encourage them to abandon ideas of functional imperialism, and the tiresome status anxiety that goes with it. There’s power in giving responsibility away to users. See procurement as an organisational competence. /40

You might be responsible for some big spend numbers, but remember you’re spending other people’s money, on goods and services you personally will never use. Accept that you’re probably not the strategic heart of the organisation. Be more realistic about your influence. /41

You will still seem important to your suppliers, as your decisions can significantly affect their future. Post-Covid, they (and you) are likely to be under huge pressure. Some will be intimidated, but the smarter ones have got your number. /42

Don’t look to CIPS to lead the way. Sure, secure your diploma, but don’t stop there. Pursue more advanced technical skills if your aim is to specialise in the field. Rather than charm, they can be your personal USP and the reason why stakeholders will want to engage with you. /43

In the meantime, you’re not God’s Gift to your organisation, or to business. Stop bleating about lack of recognition. In some sectors, your role is relatively unimportant, despite your qualifications or ambitions (so your choice of sector is key). /44

So, is it me or procurement that’s changed? It’s both. I’ve learned huge amounts working in procurement but have come out the other side. It can be a great career (if you choose well) but it’s not the be-all-and-end-all of business. Never was, and never will be. /Ends

I might elaborate further in a LinkedIn blog shortly.