… but will you force it that way with (Gen) AI or because of (Gen) AI and the ridiculous claims the hype around it is making?

We’re wrapping up our first Garry week (as there may be more to come, especially if we can lure Garry back from the world of Architectural Design to Procurement … after all, software offerings like Programa really need a good Procurement module and a good leader like Garry to help them build it) with his post on how AI will force Procurement to become smaller, sharper and more consequential.

Which is true, as long as you accept that consequential won’t always be a good thing if you blindly use (Gen) AI or blindly ignore (classic) AI and f*ck up royally. But let’s backup.

As Garry astutely notes, AI frees Procurement from administration the same way a gym membership frees you from being unfit. It depends on whether or not you use it, and how. And, if you use it, as Garry points out, it depends on whether or not Procurement uses any additional time gained to do more of the same, or redesign the profession. (There’s also the possibility you ban all AI, even classic AI proven to be good, dependable, and hallucination free.)

Garry argues Procurement will become smaller (even though Procurement is usually understaffed as it is) because most coordination work can now be done by technology (AI not needed, just reliable middleware 3.0, also known as orchestration). There will be no tolerance for statements that “we need three people to do this” when the organization sees peers apparently doing it with one. (Not necessarily done well, but done.) And attempts to defined headcount by creating (unnecessary) governance will fail, as people will just continue to route around as much governance as they can, like they have always done.

It will become sharper because, despite the fact that the key to success is good processes, process competence is not rewarded — only commercial judgement. Good Procurement organizations will focus on finding professionals that understand irreversibility and second (and third) order consequences, who know how deep they have to investigate before making a decision, will quickly research to that depth (and only that depth), and quickly give you a “yes”, “no”, or “this is complicated — I need this much time to give you a authoritative answer”.

And one way or the other, it will be more consequential because, as Garry implies, and I clarify — Procurement now sits dead center in organizational strategic risk. It chooses the supplier, the carrier, the route, the chain, and the contract. All of which are now major risks across all organizations. Every day, another decision made by Procurement is a Board-level risk … and if it’s made by AI, it can be a devastating one.

Garry argues that future procurement organizations, and leaders, will be different. Not just processes, but decision architects. Not just cost avoidance, but risk-and-trade-off masters. Not just gatekeepers (where the gate must be kept locked where regulatory compliance cannot be broken), but “standard-based enablers”.

But there won’t be as much divergence as Garry indicates there might be. Procurement will only reach this level of effectiveness if they put a proper end-to-end decision enablement (not making) system architecture in place that implements and orchestrates best-in-class technology that captures best-in-class processes and supports end-to-end automation potential wherever the risk is acceptable for the platform to do so — including not only the ability to automatically stop, raise an exception, and include a human with expert judgement in the loop, but the ability to “learn” from that decision, encode a new pattern, and ensure the same type situation is automatically handled the same way in the future so that every system interaction removes the need for a future system interaction, allowing people to focus on tasks only people can do. (i.e. Adaptive Robotic Process Automation, or ARPA. Not necessarily Gen-AI. Classic ML will do just fine!)

Everyone, even those focussed on negotiation and relationship management, will make heavy use of systems — the only difference is what systems a Procurement professional will use in the majority of their system interactions. Back office people will focus more on modern risk-aware and trade-off aware sourcing and procurement systems which support advanced analysis, optimization, multi-objective cost vs risk vs quality trade offs, etc. Relationship managers will focus on third party financial and risk ratings, regional and natural disaster risk, performance, and quality data, interpolations, and projections as well as (critical/impact) spend (level) and distribution to judge the supplier’s overall performance and spend their time in risk analysis and performance tracking systems with an occasional spend dashboard. And so on. Processes that ensure all critical data, risks, and compliance requirements are captured are key, and so are the systems (automated to the extent possible) that encode them. Procurement will depend on these systems. The difference is how much manual work they will be doing in the systems vs using the analysis and guidance that comes out of the systems to make good judgement based decisions.