Making the Transition to Strategic Purchasing

The purchasing function can go beyond mere cost cutting by rote. It can add value by driving innovation and superior long-term cost performance.

Reading Time: 10 min 


Permissions and PDF

Most companies consider purchasing to be simplistic and merely a means to an end: The goal is to minimize costs while meeting functional requirements. Therefore, most major manufacturers play competing suppliers against one another, use their clout to squeeze suppliers or find other ways to force further price cuts through purchasing. And because senior managers in purchasing seldom stay in their positions for more than a few years, they rarely build good will among suppliers or create sustainable improvements in the overall purchasing function. As a result, the primary purchasing model in most companies rests on finding the best price for each isolated transaction through any means possible.

This approach misses a significant strategic potential to add value to a company through the purchasing function by driving innovation and superior long-term cost performance. Transforming purchasing into such a strategic function requires a long-term perspective aimed at building “networks of competence” — people who can cross boundaries and analyze the true costs of product and process proposals. It requires integrating purchasing into the beginning of a design or project rather than relegating it to the end of the process chain, where its role is viewed as simply buying the goods and services other departments need. It requires a fundamentally different approach to recruiting and training employees, as well as reorienting the entire company to a holistic view of purchasing that looks across many functions and entire supply chains.

Beyond its contributions to product quality and business performance, a systemically oriented purchasing department can foster knowledge sharing and innovation both companywide and across complex supply chains — a capability that is becoming a highly valuable strategic asset as manufacturers are increasingly held accountable for social and environmental impacts.

When I became the head of technical purchasing at Bayerische Motoren Werke AG in 1994, purchasing was essentially an administrative function, and morale in the department was low. Purchasing associates believed their knowledge was underutilized and their skills unrecognized. Many felt their work was not respected. It was clear that a new vision for the department was needed. If we could combine deep knowledge about markets and suppliers with strong relationship-building skills, we could influence what was bought, saving money and adding value from the beginning of the proposal process.


Reprint #:


More Like This

Add a comment

You must to post a comment.

First time here? Sign up for a free account: Comment on articles and get access to many more articles.

Comment (1)
Rabindranath Bhattacharya
Rabindranath Bhattacharya, Research Scholar, Indian institute of Technology Madras, India

I thank the author for highlighting a point which was being practiced by Japanese manufacturers for a long time
Suppliers are to be treated as "partners in progress" and we learned this from SUZUKI when I was head of Materials Management during nineties. Although I fully agree with the author that officers must build up relationship with the suppliers, enhance their competency and knowledge of the market etc to guide the suppliers properly to enable them add value to the process not cost, I still feel  the culture of treating the suppliers as partners in progress is not recognized/practiced at the top level of many companies in many parts of the world.  However the Japanese have overcome this long   back and as a result the suppliers deliver the products on line at the right time at right place every time. Items are self certified and do not require inspection (cost addition). Suppliers get all the knowledge from their counterparts in the parent company on a regular basis. It's a win-win situation. Where are we?