if I told you that 30% of CPOs thought that their transformation would be judged a failure, would you be surprised?
That’s what they told us.
Although it was pre-COVID. There was a world pre-COVID, pre-permacrisis, and we were as keen on transformation then as we are now; we just didn’t have the business case.
Our statistics came from a “State of Digital” report in 2019/20, although the statistic we hear most often about transformation is that 80% of them fail in delivery (catching at least 50% of our audience unawares).
Transformation is a positive motion, and yet it has a reputation problem, and in my experience, most don’t fail in delivery. They fail in persuasion.
The evidence? With the aforementioned pre-COVID caveat, only 15% of the 1,000 CPOs we interviewed could easily articulate the benefits of digital investments, and 50% said that they struggled to sell the vision to the C-Suite or key stakeholders. We were struggling as a profession to articulate the benefits of investment in procurement.
Sadly, or thankfully, the world has done that for us now, or at least it has presented another opportunity for change with volatility and innovation squeezing us with equal fervour. Change is a constant, but change can be daunting.
One thing is for sure. If we don’t lead it…. nothing changes (until it does).
“Content authors have a habit of telling you what we should do/must do! But I thought I would be more fun to write what we shouldn’t do. How exactly can we either not transform in 2026 or get it very, very wrong? And from a long list of 12 ideas, I landed on these 5.”
1. Assume that the case for change is obvious
Because it is obvious, isn’t it? Maybe to us.
There are lots of obvious things to do right now, some affordable, some less so. But remember, if we are seeking funding to transform the way procurement works, we are in good company, because HR, Finance, Marketing, Tech, and Supply Chain are doing it too. At the same time. We are competing.
This is where the great persuasion failure comes in. The case isn’t obvious, perhaps directionally so, but it is no more compelling than everyone else’s case. Unless we make it compelling, with a bit of logic linking it to the business “why” and a whole lot of magic to spark excitement.
And if we don’t change that… nothing changes.
2. Believe all of the hype, or none of the hype
It is estimated that 60-80% of the content/advisory notes out there are sponsored by vendors through their own channels or by their employees.
Then, of course, there are consultants, analysts, and influencers who have varying degrees of independence and varying tendencies for sensationalism. It can be hard to get an independent view of a large, fast-moving market.
So, don’t believe all of the hype. An example? The noise surrounding orchestration is deafening, yet the large-enterprise market is probably less than 5% penetrated. If you are not doing it, you are not materially behind… just yet. Further, many of the most exciting emerging solutions that look fun, exciting, and funded are yet to be tested in complex organisational scenarios, assuming progress without resistance.
There are pioneers, and then there are settlers. Settlers usually benefit from the work of the pioneers. And most of us are settlers. That doesn’t mean do nothing, it means be intentional.
Don’t get overstimulated by what’s possible and forget to do what’s practical. Then nothing changes.
3. Assume efficiency creates more strategic work
A great misdirection? Perhaps if we automate tactical work, we will spend our time being strategic.
There is some truth in it, at least time will be freed up, although whose time and what proportion of each type of role is the key question? But it is by no means a given, and it is by no means simple.
Challenge one is that, in larger organizations, much of the automated work will be tactical and administrative tasks already handled by specialist teams. These teams, in most cases, are in no way prepared or readily able to make the leap to “more strategic work”.
In smaller organizations, the work automation will be part of someone’s job, so arms and legs. The lessons of the past would suggest that we are as likely to see these resources do more “strategic work” as we are to expose their preference zone of the more tactical elements of their day job. It’s an uncomfortable truth.
In any event, the right to be strategic has to be earned. So, a way to ensure that nothing changes is not to invest in supporting teams to become more strategic.
- How to earn the trust of those who can offer up the work
- How to see and solve business problems
- How to tell great stories and persuade for change
- How to communicate with senior stakeholders
If we don’t do that, nothing changes; we’ve just automated some processes and probably put some people out of a job, leaving them struggling in another.
Nothing Changes.
4. Wait Until the Data Is Perfect
The next generation of procurement technology works best with clean data and clear processes.
AI, especially generative AI, work better with clean, complete, and structured data. Orchestration works better with defined workflows.
The instinct on AI is obvious: fix the data first. The problem is that perfect data is a moving target. For most organizations, the wait for perfect data means delaying the start indefinitely.
The paradox? Whilst AI works best on clean data, it can also be part of the solution to clean the data to be used by, well, itself. Make sense?
There will be a process to go through; define the answers, identify the data, locate the data, clean the data, activate the data, etc. The same goes for defining processes; perhaps making the call to go down an orchestration route forces the issue of better understanding and defining how work is done. Just expect to do a bit more work on setup and implementation; progress with assumed resistance.
We must move, if we decide to wait until everything is perfect before we move… nothing changes.
4. Make things better, but harder
Technology is going to be central to many, if not most, of the transformations we see today.
Yes, much of what we do is still a human sport, but our equipment is getting better, much better. Undeniably, even for the cynics, technology is a central and fundamental enabler of the present and the future.
So, how to get it wrong? The worst possible place to be in a technology transformation or implementation is asking someone to do something they haven’t done before, in a tool they haven’t used before. You face two questions instead of one: why should I do this, and why should I use these tools?
Many of the tools we are looking at today are objectively better. They are more powerful. They are more configurable. They can do more things. But on day one, they are also… harder. And so, they get rejected. We don’t form habits.
If the tool is better… but harder… people quietly find ways around it. And if nobody really uses the tools… and in that event, nothing changes.
Will our 2026 be any different to our 2025?
Well, it’s in our hands. There are powerful forces reshaping the world, supply architectures, and business decisions right now. This has always been so. Change has always been constant, but not always with procurement so front and centre. That should help us over the business case bit….
But if we don’t make it happen… nothing changes.
