Procurement professionals spend years mastering supplier negotiations, contract terms, and market intelligence. But according to a growing chorus of practitioners, the skill that determines success or failure has nothing to do with external vendors.

It’s the ability to win over internal stakeholders who would rather bypass procurement entirely.

“Most people don’t ignore procurement because they’re malicious,” observed Tom Mills, “Mavericks are usually impatient or just want to get it done. And the harder you push, the harder they resist.”

The observation sparked extensive debate among procurement leaders about why compliance-based approaches fail and what actually works to build internal influence.

The Enforcement Trap

Matthias Svetic, a German market communication advisor, framed the core problem. “Enforcement creates compliance at best. It never creates commitment. The shift from policing process to understanding pressure is where procurement professionals actually start building influence.”

He identified the prize for getting this right. “That influence is what gets you invited into conversations earlier, before the decision is already made and the supplier is already signed.”

Tomasz Tyras, a senior supply chain and operations expert, diagnosed why stakeholders bypass procurement in the first place. “Maverick spend is rarely a procurement problem first. It is usually a speed problem, a trust problem, or a usability problem. People bypass functions that arrive late, speak in policy, or add friction without reducing risk.”

Mark L. Robinson, who transitioned from USDA to private sector procurement, confirmed that policy itself can be the culprit. “Bad policy is one of the main reasons people try to bypass procurement. I saw a lot of that when I worked for USDA.”

Better Questions, Not Louder Enforcement

Mills proposed specific language shifts that change stakeholder dynamics.

Instead of “You should have involved procurement earlier,” try “What outcome were you hoping to achieve with this supplier?”

Instead of “Why didn’t you follow the process?” try “What pressures were you facing when you made that decision?”

“The wrong question triggers resistance,” Mills wrote. “The right one creates space for collaboration.”

Strahinja Jovanovic, a supply chain and inventory expert, illustrated how this plays out in practice. “Stakeholder bypasses procurement, orders direct. Procurement finds out. Enforcement: ‘You violated policy.’ The stakeholder goes quiet, the problem goes underground. Exploration: ‘What were you facing?’ opens why they bypassed, surfaces the real barrier.”

He warned about the downstream effects of enforcement. “Enforcement stops visible maverick spend but creates invisible workarounds.”

Hamilton Lindley, VP of Procurement, Compliance and Risk, added a caution about even well-intentioned questions. “The trap even good questions miss is that they still feel like interrogation if the person doesn’t feel heard first. You have to actually understand why they bypassed you before asking what they were trying to achieve.”

The Deal That Works

Leslie Dailey, a procurement and contracts leader, shared a practical approach that has delivered results. “I make deals with my leaders and stakeholders. You bring me in early, you be the expert and I will take care of the paperwork.”

The framing matters. “This lets them know I understand the pain points, and I understand their needs and urgency. This has been wildly successful for me.”

She identified a common complaint she addressed head-on. “One of the biggest issues I had heard before is we say no at the wrong time or too late in the game, so I flipped the script and they partner with me just to get it done.”

Mandeep Singh, who works in contract manufacturing, described his two-minute approach. “I’ll ask what deadline they’re protecting, then I’ll offer one concrete move that helps today, like locking the scope in one paragraph, getting the supplier to confirm dates in writing, or building a simple approval path so their request doesn’t bounce around.”

His insight: “Once they feel you’re reducing their stress, not adding to it, they stop bypassing procurement on their own.”

Understanding the Stakeholder Change Curve

Mills introduced a framework for meeting stakeholders where they are. “Not every stakeholder is ready to engage. Some are in: ‘I don’t need procurement.’ Others are in: ‘Maybe procurement could help.’ If they’re in pre-awareness, your role isn’t to enforce policy. It’s to build credibility and plant seeds.”

He identified quiet signs that stakeholders are opening up: involving procurement earlier in conversations, asking for input on supplier decisions, referencing procurement internally, shifting from bypassing to collaborating. “Those are all the signs of progress being made and you should see them as a win.”

Chantell L., founder and CEO of RenewedHER Procurement Group, captured the dynamic. “The biggest shift happens when the conversation moves from policing the process to understanding what the stakeholder is actually trying to solve. When people feel heard first, they’re far more open to seeing how procurement can help them get there.”

The Incentive Problem

Dr. Tobias Riehm, a market designer specializing in game theory and negotiation architectures, offered a structural perspective that went beyond communication skills.

“Resistance to procurement often isn’t just about communication or trust. It’s about incentives,” he wrote. “Many stakeholders operate in a different payoff structure: speed, technical performance, or internal KPIs may dominate cost optimization. From their perspective, bypassing procurement can therefore be a perfectly rational strategy.”

His prescription went further than relationship-building. “The most effective procurement organizations don’t just influence behavior. They redesign the incentive structure and the decision process so collaboration becomes the dominant strategy.”

The Mandate Question

Dr. Mario Büsch, a procurement strategist and advisor, raised a point about organizational support. “It is equally the responsibility of the procurement management team to work with the Board to establish and strengthen a clear mandate for procurement.”

Ashwin Nayak, a procurement professional, described the inherent tension. “Leadership expects procurement to manage gatekeeping priorities of compliance, savings, etc., which often are contrary to the dynamic goals of the internal stakeholders, often requiring agility and timelines as immediate as yesterday.”

Sarah McGillicuddy, a procurement consultant, distilled stakeholder engagement to two keys. “Listen to them, create opportunities and space to really listen, and deliver results. When you prove your value, stakeholders come to you with curiosity or conviction, not because they have to follow the rules.”

The Perception Problem

Michael Shields, Vice President of Procurement at Tropic, acknowledged an uncomfortable truth. “Admittedly our reputation in procurement isn’t always the best.”

He outlined a two-pronged solution. “We need to be improving how people perceive us. It’s tackling the problem from both sides. Improve the value we offer plus do a better job of helping people see it. In my experience, that’s a recipe for success.”

Magdalena Jimenez Carrillo, an indirect purchasing manager, described the daily reality. “Working in Procurement sometimes feels like being in permanent negotiation mode. And not just with suppliers. A big part of the job is the subtle, behind-the-scenes negotiation we do every day with our internal stakeholders.”

Mills confirmed this is the underestimated challenge. “The biggest underestimated challenge for procurement professionals is actually internal, not external. Not enough people talk about this.”

Where Trust Comes From

Chandranath Chakraborty, a senior procurement and transformation executive with experience at Disney, Nike, Unilever, and P&G, framed the stakes clearly. “When we lead with enforcement, we become a hurdle to be cleared. When we lead with curiosity, asking about the pressures a stakeholder is facing, we become an architect of their solution.”

He summarized the difference between compliance and trust. “Compliance might get the contract signed, but trust is what gets you invited to the meeting where the strategy is actually born.”

Nuha Luqman, who works in supply chain and procurement for energy ecosystems, offered a memorable formulation. “Procurement influence often grows through curiosity rather than control. The right question can open more doors than the strictest policy.”

Howard Richman, a global procurement transformation leader and co-author of “Procurement Confidential,” invoked a classic principle. “Seek first to understand, then to be understood.”

Tyras described what success looks like. “The turning point comes when procurement starts being seen not as control, but as a faster path to a better decision. In strong organizations, compliance is the outcome, not the opening line. The real win is when the business involves procurement early because it sees judgment, market intelligence, and problem-solving value there.”

Mills acknowledged that the transformation isn’t always one-directional. “Coaching a stakeholder into awareness takes time. The breakthrough often happens after the conversation ends. And sometimes, the mindset that changes most is procurement’s.”

Continue the discussion with procurement and supply chain professionals on Chain.NET.

The procurement profession talks a good game about supplier relationships. Partnership. Collaboration. Win-win. But according to experienced practitioners, the gap between rhetoric and reality is where trust goes to die.

A recent discussion among supply chain executives catalogued seven common mistakes that damage supplier relationships, often without procurement teams even realizing it. The comments that followed revealed an industry grappling with how to balance commercial discipline with the respect that builds durable supplier ecosystems.

“Procurement only wins with suppliers when it treats the relationship like a long-term performance system, not a series of tactical wins,” wrote John Cross, an AI-driven procurement and transformation leader. “The moment ego, opacity, or faux-partnership creep in, you trade short-term gains for long-term risk.”

The Seven Mistakes

Simon Frost, a procurement consultant specializing in sustainable procurement and cost modeling, outlined behaviors that undermine supplier trust.

Talking “win-win” when you mean “we win, you survive.” Suppliers can detect insincerity. The tip: understand what’s actually valuable to them, share what matters to you, and trade value-based variables rather than just hammering on price.

Not paying to agreed terms. “Your suppliers are not your bank,” Frost wrote. “Late payment erodes trust and breeds resentment.”

Aiman Nadeem, a global sourcing expert, put it more sharply. “If you delay payment while preaching partnership, credibility evaporates instantly. Cash flow hypocrisy is remembered longer than any contract clause.”

Being overly familiar. Supplier relationships are commercial, not personal friendships. Frost advised knowing where the imaginary line sits, being friendly and respectful, but maintaining professional distance.

Declaring partnership when it isn’t. True partnership involves high interdependency and shared risk over extended periods. “Don’t declare partnership if it isn’t,” Frost wrote. “It’s phoney. Instead say: ‘we value our relationship’ and let your positive actions do the talking.”

Boasting about winning. Frost reported hearing procurement professionals declare “We nailed them!” after negotiations. This bravado, he warned, is dangerous. “A wounded supplier will come back to bite you. Even if you got what you wanted, remain humble.”

Expecting suppliers to fix your ESG. Environmental, social, and governance compliance is a shared responsibility, not a compliance baton to pass. The recommendation: set achievable standards, learn new skills together, collaborate on improvements, and share data transparently.

Hiding information. Procurement teams often keep cards close to their chest, building resentment. The guidance: appreciate that sharing information can help you, trade information to get information, and never try to hoodwink suppliers.

Frost proposed a simple test for every interaction: “Would I like to be treated like this?”

The Comments Added Three More Mistakes

Industry practitioners expanded the list with observations from their own experience.

Nuha Luqman, who works in supply chain and procurement for energy ecosystems, identified a common failure. “One I’d add: managing suppliers only when there’s a problem. Real partnerships are built in the quiet moments, not just in negotiations or escalations. Consistency builds more trust than any ‘win.’”

Alberto Mentesana, a director of procurement and supply chain in oil and gas, added another. “One mistake I would add: treating suppliers as interchangeable commodities when they are actually strategic capabilities.”

He elaborated on what makes supplier management effective. “The biggest mistake organizations make is treating supplier management purely as a price negotiation exercise. Price matters, but sustainable performance comes from mutual understanding of value, transparency, and long-term alignment of interests.”

Farzaneh S., an industrial procurement manager with over 15 years of experience, contributed a third addition. “I’d add: treating every supplier the same. Segmentation changes everything.”

The Balance Between Friendly and Professional

Mary Ruth Williamson, a procurement and strategic sourcing practitioner focused on direct materials, offered a counterpoint to concerns about being too distant. The bigger problem, she argued, is the opposite.

“So many procurement folks actually believe and act like the supplier is their friend,” she wrote. “Then they give away too much info, don’t hold them responsible for performance and don’t keep them honest about price. It’s one of the biggest errors I see inexperienced procurement teams make.”

When asked which of her own mistakes she’s had to overcome, Williamson acknowledged an evolution. “Early in my career it was probably hiding information. As experience grows, you learn that sharing certain information can make your supplier a better partner and can show your commitment to the relationship.”

The Phoney Partnership Problem

The issue of declaring partnership prematurely drew significant comment.

Mário Delmaestro Junior, a general manager at REMA TIP TOP Middle East, highlighted why this matters. “The point about ‘declaring partnership when it isn’t’ really stands out. True partnerships are built through shared risk and long-term behaviour, not labels.”

Samuel Mutuku, a procurement and supply chain specialist, agreed. “Declaring partnership prematurely is a common trap. Actions always speak louder than words. Mutual commitment is demonstrated, not announced.”

Javeria Javed, a BBA student interested in supply chain, asked a practical question: “What’s the clearest signal that a supplier relationship has genuinely moved from transactional to strategic?”

Jehanzeb Alam, a procurement and supply chain leader focused on ESG integration, offered an answer. “Supplier relationships that I have seen are built on shared problem solving, when both sides feel safe to be transparent, including risk, constraints and future plans. Which essentially makes the relationship strategic.”

Communication Reveals Character

Toni Le Rigoleur, who works on SAP Ariba and procurement solutions, observed that how procurement communicates reveals underlying motivations.

“Buyers often miss this and just ask and negotiate with nothing in exchange and call it a win-win,” he wrote. “But more often than not, you can also feel it in their way of communication. Are they speaking from ego? Fear? Trust? It all changes how relationships are made in business.”

Chantell L., founder and CEO of RenewedHER Procurement Group, emphasized that behavior during difficult times defines relationships. “So much of this comes down to basic respect and self-awareness. The commercial edge matters, but how people show up day to day, especially when things are tight, is what suppliers actually remember.”

Maturity Means Balance

Carlos Eduardo Carvalho da Silva, a global strategic sourcing specialist, defined what procurement maturity looks like. “Maturity in Sourcing is about balancing firm commercial discipline with genuine, value-based collaboration. It’s the only way to move beyond simple transactions.”

Annette Ng’ang’a, a senior procurement and supply chain specialist, framed the fundamental shift required. “Procurement is more relational than it is transactional and therefore we should strive to have very amazing ones with suppliers.”

Stan Moskovtsev, CEO of Zinit and a McKinsey alum, noted that problems extend beyond the seven mistakes listed. “I’ve seen challenges arise when expectations aren’t aligned, when feedback loops are missing, or when long-term strategic value is overlooked in favor of short-term wins.”

Kishore Kunal, a global procurement leader managing a $250 million-plus CAPEX portfolio, endorsed the core principle. “The ‘would I like to be treated like this?’ test is especially powerful. Simple, uncomfortable, and very effective.”

The Long Game

Industry Roll, a procurement community account, distilled the discussion to its essence. “Many points narrow down to one simple thing: be a good person, be humble and honest. Quick wins don’t matter. The long running ones do, because they create true partnerships.”

Procrewment added one final caution. “Overemphasis on cost today can reduce responsiveness and innovation tomorrow.”

Arrigo Tosi, a procurement manager, acknowledged the gap between knowing and doing. “These are the basis but not every time respected.”

The response from Frost captured why that gap persists. “If we’re the ones who respect these type of principles, then we will shine out above others who aren’t.”

In an era of supply chain disruption, the practitioners who treat supplier relationships as strategic assets rather than adversarial negotiations may find themselves with more resilient, more responsive, and ultimately more valuable supply bases than those still celebrating tactical wins.

Continue the discussion with procurement and supply chain professionals on Chain.NET.

Supply chain leaders have a forecasting obsession. They pour millions into advanced planning systems. They chase AI pilots. They build dashboards nobody uses. Then they wonder why service levels stay flat and inventory keeps climbing.

A recent report from Boston Consulting Group, “Supply Chain Planning 2026: Why AI Alone Isn’t Enough,” surveyed more than 180 planning leaders across industries and regions. The findings confirm what many practitioners already feel in their gut. Over 70% of companies have invested in advanced planning systems (APS). Yet few consider themselves best-in-class. The gap between leaders and laggards keeps growing. BCG’s conclusion: technology is not the constraint. People, processes, and organizational readiness are.

Read more

When Finance presents to leadership, they talk about growth. When Sales presents, they talk about wins. When Operations presents, they talk about performance.

When Procurement presents, they talk about savings percentages and compliance adherence.

That disconnect, according to a growing chorus of supply chain executives, explains why procurement struggles for strategic recognition despite managing billions in corporate spend.

“We’re selling aspirin to people who don’t think they have a headache,” observed Juan F. P., founder of Success Procurement Consulting, in a post that sparked vigorous debate among procurement professionals worldwide.

The diagnosis resonated. But the proposed cure, a fundamental shift in how procurement communicates value, generated even more discussion about whether the problem runs deeper than language alone.

The Translation Problem

Marcel Van Wonderen, a procurement and supply chain transformation advisor and former IBM executive, framed the challenge bluntly. “Leadership doesn’t reject procurement. They reject irrelevance.”

He added a memorable observation: “No one remembers a percentage saved. But they do remember the product launch that happened with important third party content.”

Muhammad Arham Khan, a procurement professional specializing in renewable energy, captured the shift required. “Procurement doesn’t need louder voices. It needs better translators. When we convert savings into shareholder value, risk into resilience, and sourcing into strategy, the room listens.”

The original post proposed concrete changes: Replace “€4.8M category renegotiation” with “the reason Product Launch X stayed on budget.” Kill the 40-slide quarterly deck and replace it with three stories the CFO can repeat to the board without procurement in the room.

Tomasz Tyras, a senior supply chain and operations expert, expanded on this framework. “Procurement often reports in ‘internal metrics’ while leadership listens in ‘business outcomes.’ Savings percentage and compliance are fine, but they do not explain what stayed on track, what risk was avoided, or what speed was unlocked.”

He offered a litmus test for effective communication. “The move is to translate every procurement win into one of three board dialects: cash, risk, or growth. If it cannot be repeated by the CFO in one sentence, it is not a message yet.”

Beyond Communication: A Structural Problem

Not everyone agreed that better storytelling solves the underlying issue. David Castro Yáñez, an operations leader focused on productivity and implementation, challenged the premise.

“I agree with the overall point, but I think the issue goes beyond communication or language,” he wrote. “The real challenge is how Procurement KPIs are defined and how performance is measured. If the function is assessed primarily on savings, it will naturally report savings.”

He identified the root cause. “The need to ‘translate’ that into broader business impact signals a structural misalignment, not a communication gap. This starts with rethinking Procurement’s strategic objectives and KPIs, led by the CPO, so that value creation is embedded in how performance is measured, not retrofitted in how it is presented.”

Elvira Tiurina, a procurement leader with experience on LNG and EPC mega-projects, confirmed this misalignment exists widely. “We have 30+ slides deck and it is awkward to tell we do our job well. The main question is the value. If 50% of procurement KPIs don’t match business needs, so... You understand what I mean.”

The response acknowledged an uncomfortable truth. “If 50% of Procurement KPIs don’t match what the business actually cares about, the problem isn’t storytelling. It’s alignment. A 30-slide deck is usually a symptom, not the cause. We create more slides when we’re unsure our metrics prove relevance.”

The Data Storyteller Imperative

Fabian Landsinger, a procurement lead specializing in aviation training devices, identified a capability gap. “Turning data into stories is a key future competency. Procurement overall is still struggling to express its true strategic value. It’s on us to develop more ‘Data Storytellers.’”

Stefan Lenhart, who fixes broken supply chains for SMEs, illustrated what effective translation looks like. “Your CFO couldn’t care less about order lot size optimization. They will care if you can trace that to a six-digit working capital reduction.”

He warned of the consequences of failing to adapt. “If procurement pros are unable to translate what we’re doing into numbers and facts that show an impact to the business, the function will always remain sidelined.”

Saleh Aljneibi, a senior procurement and contracts manager in government administration, distilled the maturity journey into one sentence. “Procurement maturity isn’t just capability. It’s narrative alignment with enterprise priorities.”

The Emotional Dimension

Rahul Vashistha, a former board member at Nestrade Procurement with global leadership experience, added nuance that purely rational approaches miss. He identified several challenges procurement must navigate beyond language.

“Managing the emotions of sense of possessiveness of budget owners. Withdrawal symptoms of losing commercial ownership. Perception that procurement is COST and/or SERVICE focus and NOT BUSINESS focus.”

His prescription: “Establish that Procurement understands business as much as business stakeholders and works with business, for business.”

Alfred “Vaughn” Melson, a senior sourcing specialist, suggested borrowing techniques from an unexpected source. “Explore how to apply emotional intelligence. YouTube ‘Chris Voss Hostage Negotiator’ and move to the head of the table where you, procurement, belong.”

His insight: “If someone has to defend their position, they will. If they feel understood, they’ll reconsider it themselves.”

Letting Go of Credit

One of the most counterintuitive recommendations from the original post drew significant support: make procurement’s wins belong to everyone. Let the business take the external credit. Earn the internal trust.

Marina Ayad, a procurement professional based in the UAE, endorsed this approach. “This approach not only builds trust, but also positions you as a true business partner, creating real value for the wider organization rather than focusing on departmental recognition or personal pride.”

Amalia Sepulveda Corzo, a supply chain manager with 18 years of experience across oil and gas, energy, mining, and agribusiness, summarized the required transformation. “The shift isn’t operational. It’s narrative. And that starts by speaking in business outcomes, framing trade-offs in strategic terms, and connecting every initiative to EBITDA, growth, or risk.”

Proactive Presence

The original post recommended a behavioral change: stop waiting for invitations to strategy meetings. Bring one relevant insight per week. Short. Unsolicited. Useful.

Olugbenga Odusanya, a global supply chain and procurement thought leader, framed the opportunity. “Procurement earns strategic influence when it speaks the business language of value, risk, and impact, not just savings metrics and compliance numbers.”

Peter Gyurak, a procurement consultant and trainer, offered a reality check about what leadership actually values. “The ‘Table’ doesn’t care about the process of procurement, only the byproduct of it.”

Maria Del Pilar Cristobal Rico, a procurement manager focused on complex negotiation and risk mitigation, emphasized the listening component. “It is crucial to learn how leaders truly listen and to adapt our message in accordance.”

The Path Forward

The debate revealed a profession wrestling with its identity and influence. Some see the solution in better communication. Others point to structural changes in how procurement is measured. Most agree that the status quo, where procurement presents savings percentages to executives who think in terms of growth, wins, and performance, cannot continue.

None of the proposed solutions require new tools, additional budget, or transformation programs. They require changing how procurement communicates value. Or, as one practitioner put it, unlearning how procurement teams are taught to communicate and learning how leaders truly listen.

The question facing every procurement professional: Are you reporting what you saved, or showing what you made possible?

Continue the discussion with procurement and supply chain professionals on Chain.NET.

The warehouse automation industry has a reputation problem. And according to executives who gathered at some recent logistics events, it’s largely self-inflicted.

Conversations in hallways and meeting rooms revealed a troubling pattern: expensive automation projects failing, operators pulling the plug on multi-million dollar investments, and a growing reluctance among companies to attempt automation again after getting burned.

“Automation is not a problem, inept implementation is,” summarized Ken Ackerman, a warehousing consultant and author of four industry books. His blunt assessment captures a sentiment spreading across the logistics sector.

The technology works. The sales process doesn’t.

The Square Peg Problem

Kevin Lawton, host of The New Warehouse Podcast, sparked an industry-wide discussion after sharing observations from multiple conversations about failed projects. His diagnosis pointed to a fundamental misalignment between what’s being sold and what operations actually need.

“What I’m seeing is that many solution providers were focused on the sale and not necessarily focused on the right solution at the time even if that solution was not theirs,” Lawton wrote.

James Palmer, a leader in automation and robotics, agreed emphatically. “What we are seeing is a result of under qualified, inexperienced sales people pushing a portfolio of products not fit for purpose. To solve the problem you need to understand the problem.”

Jakob Beer, a warehouse automation specialist, offered a sharper critique of how the industry frames its offerings. “There are no ‘solutions’ on the market, only products. The solution needs to be engineered based upon customer requirements, and it entails much more than a bunch of robots. Mistaking products or technology for solutions is one of the reasons why projects fail.”

He added a sobering observation: “The number of failed projects is much higher than one might expect. Many failed projects, as measured by ROI, aren’t even recognized as failures. Many projects deliver much less than promised.”

Follow the Money

Several industry veterans traced the problem to its financial roots. Michael Myers, whose software helps warehouses improve cost efficiency, identified venture capital as a contributing factor.

“We cheer when solution providers raise tons of VC capital, then we’re surprised when capital automatically becomes sales pressure,” he wrote. His comment drew significant engagement from professionals who recognized the dynamic.

Ottavio Saluzzi, who has worked on automation projects across five continents over nearly 20 years, expanded on this theme. “In the age of AI and automation, too many ‘solutions’ are being driven by sales pressure, VCs, and investors pushing tech companies to grow revenue at all costs. It’s all about top-line growth to prove relevance or secure the next funding round.”

He shared a telling anecdote about maintaining integrity under pressure. A prospect asked his team for shuttles. “The answer was, as it should have been, ‘let’s look at the data first, run the numbers, the result will suggest the solution.’ And the result was that the client didn’t even need automation. Ye olde unfancy manual warehouse would have done.”

Missed sale? Perhaps. But Saluzzi noted that wrong implementations devastate vendor reputations, pointing to major market share shifts among providers as evidence of eroding trust.

Automation Exposes, It Doesn’t Fix

Cecilia George, a senior recruitment consultant specializing in the sector, identified a fundamental misconception driving failures.

“Warehouse automation often gets treated like the shiny new toy, but in reality it doesn’t really fix broken operations, but rather exposes them,” she wrote. “Too many projects fail because companies assume automation will solve fundamental process, data or layout issues.”

She proposed a different success metric. “The real measure of success is not ‘does this technology work?’ It’s ‘is this warehouse automation ready?’”

The prerequisites she listed, including clear operating processes, clean master data, realistic throughput assumptions, change management, and internal capability, often go unaddressed before equipment arrives.

Rich Hough II, a logistics consultant, observed the human element frequently gets overlooked. “The main issue in most cases is that the value of people is not being adequately calculated in most implementations. In some cases, empowering people with new technology tools and training up to address skill gaps is much better ROI vs replacing headcount with automations that sound good on paper but rarely deliver real world benefit as advertised.”

The Simulation Timing Problem

Amy Greer, a principal simulation engineer, identified a troubling trend in how companies approach validation.

“We are seeing a trend where companies want to simulate AFTER making the decision. That is, companies are wanting to use simulation for digital twins,” she explained. “This is a great use case for simulation, but digital twinning a bad design is not going to fix the bad design.”

Her recommendation: simulate very early in the design phase and refine as decisions progress. “Not all automation has a positive ROI, and some of our most helpful projects are the ones when we help a customer avoid a bad automation choice.”

The Career Risk Factor

Ben Hopkins, who runs The Warehouse Underground community, highlighted an underappreciated dimension of failed projects: career consequences.

“Someone’s role, their job, being at stake if things roll out poorly. The pressure becomes immense quickly and scapegoats are a real thing sadly,” he wrote. “Go through these scars a few times and it’s easy to see how people can have a ‘never again’ attitude on automation investments.”

He noted the absence of reliable vetting resources. “Because there is no easy way to vet these things ahead of time, there isn’t a ‘Yelp’ or ‘Angie’s List’ for this, they’re at the mercy of taking the vendor word for it.”

The AI Distraction

Several commenters questioned whether artificial intelligence will deliver on its warehouse promises. Marco Gebhardt, managing director of a family-owned intralogistics company, expressed skepticism.

“I don’t see that AI solves problems in SMB that automation would address,” he wrote, later adding: “A lot of what is currently labeled as ‘AI’ is essentially advanced mathematics, heuristics, and optimization algorithms. Things operations research has been doing for decades. It’s now often rebranded as AI because it sells better.”

Anthony Allwood, founder and CEO at Systems Logic, was more direct. “AI is the latest .COM style gold rush. It’s absolutely a valid and valuable technology, but it’s often being over-hyped, with investment pressure sometimes pushing entrepreneurs to compromise their moral compass.”

Simple Often Beats Sophisticated

Adrian Betts offered an automotive analogy that resonated with operators. “People are putting Ferrari cams in motorhomes. It’s gonna be a pig. An oversized solution for situations that’ll never occur.”

Jared Call, who works in warehouse automation service, distilled decades of industry wisdom into one sentence: “Automating inefficient processes will just mean you’re doing the wrong things faster.”

Jamie Callihan shared examples of overengineering. “We have learned to ask if the process needs to be ‘orchestrated’ or not. One example we see a lot is that items that need to be replenished can be handled by operators, rather than by fancy software. Send the full cart, send the empty cart back. No Wi-Fi, laptops, or engineers needed.”

The Path Forward

The consensus among practitioners points toward a more disciplined approach. Donald Ponticello emphasized data-driven decision making. “Too many operations invest in automation without truly understanding where the biggest opportunities or pain points actually are. You don’t have to automate everything on day one, but you do need to be strategic about where you focus.”

Douglas Grandi, a project manager, argued for modularity. “Instead of making a large upfront investment based on uncertain future growth and projecting a 2-3 year ROI, it is more strategic to invest in automation aligned with the operation’s current capacity. Technology should be complementary and expandable.”

Multiple voices endorsed working with agnostic consultants and integrators, particularly for first-time automation projects. As Lawton noted, innovation in the industry advances through success and understanding of proper fit, not through forcing technology into operations where it doesn’t belong.

The warehouse automation industry isn’t facing a technology crisis. It’s facing a trust crisis. Rebuilding that trust will require vendors willing to walk away from bad-fit deals and operators willing to invest in operational readiness before writing checks for robots.

Continue the discussion with supply chain and logistics professionals on Chain.NET.

This is a conversation space exclusively for subscribers - kind of like a group chat or live hangout. I’ll post questions and updates that come my way, and you can jump into the discussion.

Join chat

How to get started

1. Get the Substack app by clicking this link or the button below. New chat threads won’t be sent sent via email, so turn on push notifications so you don’t miss conversation as it happens. You can also access chat on the web.

Get app

2. Open the app and tap the Chat icon. It looks like two bubbles in the bottom bar, and you’ll see a row for my chat inside.

3. That’s it! Jump into my thread to say hi, and if you have any issues, check out Substack’s FAQ.

Supply chain leaders have talked about digital transformation for years. Now they are putting real money behind it. Nearly half of all companies implementing AI in their supply chains report cost reductions of at least 10%. The technology is moving from pilot projects to production at scale.

A recent IDC report surveyed 488 supply chain professionals and found that AI adoption is expected to grow from 50% to 86% within three years. The research also revealed that 80% of companies now consider AI either important or very important across all areas of the supply chain. This marks a clear shift from experimentation to operationalization.

Legacy Systems Block the Path Forward

The biggest obstacle to AI adoption is not strategy or budget. It is old technology.

IDC found that 46% of companies cited legacy systems as a trigger for upgrading their supply chain management applications. These older on-premises systems lack the flexibility and scalability that modern AI requires. Another 41% pointed to poor integration between new applications and legacy implementations as a major pain point.

The problem runs deep. Supply chain organizations report that legacy IT continues to drag down their responsiveness. When disruptions hit, slow systems translate to slow decisions. Cost increases, transportation delays, unpredictable deliveries, and volatile demand patterns all persist. Companies know they need to respond faster. Their technology cannot keep up.

This creates a vicious cycle. Organizations focused on cost efficiency at the expense of resiliency (35% admitted this) now find themselves unable to adapt quickly. They lack visibility into their supply chains. They cannot see where and how to respond effectively.

Three Types of AI Are Reshaping Operations

The report distinguishes between three categories of AI now entering supply chains: traditional AI and machine learning, generative AI, and agentic AI.

Traditional AI leads adoption today. About 74% of companies already use it. Another 26% plan to implement it within 18 months. These systems handle tasks like demand forecasting, inventory optimization, and predictive maintenance.

Generative AI follows close behind. Currently 41% of companies use it, with 59% planning adoption in the next 12 to 18 months. IDC projects generative AI adoption in supply chains will grow from 25% to 37% within three years. Companies apply it to process automation, real-time decision support, and exception management.

Agentic AI represents the newest frontier. Only 31% of companies use it today, but 69% plan to adopt it soon. This technology enables autonomous decision-making in specific domains. Most companies (30%) believe AI agents should make decisions in most areas with human oversight for critical issues. Another 29% want all decisions approved by humans.

The research emphasizes that benefits are maximized when supply chains combine all three types. Traditional AI provides the analytical foundation. Generative AI accelerates human productivity. Agentic AI enables faster autonomous responses. Together they create a more capable and responsive operation.

The Cloud Connection

AI requires modern infrastructure. IDC found that over 80% of respondents say modernizing their applications in the cloud is important to fully benefit from AI innovations.

The numbers tell the story. Today, 52% of companies deploy traditional AI in the cloud. That figure rises to 62% within 24 months. For generative AI, current cloud deployment stands at 65%, climbing to 77% in two years. Agentic AI shows similar patterns: 64% cloud-deployed today, 73% in 24 months.

Cloud platforms provide the computing power and data accessibility that AI demands. On-premises systems struggle to deliver the speed and scale needed for real-time supply chain decisions. Companies that delay cloud migration also delay their AI capabilities.

Where Companies See the Biggest Returns

Supply chain planning leads the list of realized benefits. Process automation for increased efficiency tops the chart at 32%. Improved predictive analysis follows at 21%. Real-time decision-making comes in at 17%.

In fulfillment and logistics, cost reduction leads at 25%. People productivity improvements reach 19%. Reduced delivery lead times and transportation route optimization each deliver meaningful gains.

The aggregate impact is substantial. IDC found that 48% of companies implementing AI report at least a 10% reduction in supply chain costs. Another 40% show a 10% improvement in productivity. And 35% demonstrate a 10% improvement in innovation delivery.

These are not marginal improvements. A 10% cost reduction across a global supply chain can mean tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in savings. Productivity gains compound over time. Innovation improvements create competitive advantages that persist.

Investment Levels Are Rising

Companies are backing these benefits with significant capital. About 23% plan to spend between $1 million and $9.9 million on AI-powered supply chain initiatives in the next 12 to 18 months. Another 9% plan investments of $10 million to $50 million.

Looking further out, spending accelerates. In the 18 to 36 month window, 31% of companies plan to invest $1 million to $9.9 million. Another 12% target the $10 million to $50 million range.

Most organizations (63%) are willing to spend as much as 20% of the total cost of replacing their supply chain management systems on AI capabilities. Only 7% expect AI functionality at no added cost. Companies recognize they must pay for these capabilities.

Key Takeaways

First, AI is no longer optional for supply chain competitiveness. Companies implementing these technologies report significant cost reductions, productivity gains, and faster innovation. Those who delay risk falling behind.

Second, legacy systems are the primary barrier. Organizations cannot unlock AI benefits while running outdated technology. Cloud migration is a prerequisite for advanced AI deployment.

Third, success requires a holistic approach. Traditional AI, generative AI, and agentic AI each contribute different capabilities. The greatest benefits come from combining all three within an integrated platform.

What is your organization’s biggest obstacle to AI adoption in supply chain? Is it legacy systems, budget constraints, talent gaps, or something else? Share your experience in the comments.

Continue the discussion on Chain.NET (www.chain.net).

As autonomous agents take over procurement and logistics work, the seat-based SaaS pricing model that shaped enterprise software for 30 years no longer works. What’s replacing it will be far more complex - and far more expensive.

For three decades, the software industry operated on a simple formula. You licensed a seat. You paid per user. You got a reasonably stable product, updated quarterly.

That model works fine when humans are the primary users. It breaks completely when agents are.

Most procurement and supply chain software today still charges per user. You add a procurement specialist, you pay for another seat. You hire a logistics coordinator, your costs rise accordingly. Acumatica’s pricing is customized based on factors like industry edition, user count, transaction volume, and selected features rather than fixed per-user fees, with the General Business Edition starting at $6,000 per year including five user licenses and 1,000 monthly transactions. That model persists across the industry.

But when agentic AI becomes operational—when suppliers are evaluated by agents, RFQs are drafted by agents, sourcing decisions are orchestrated by agents—counting seats becomes meaningless. The agents ARE the users.

Read more

The supply chain profession has a terminology problem. Three distinct functions, Category Management, Procurement, and Purchasing, are routinely conflated in job descriptions, organizational charts, and technology platforms. The result: salary chaos, undervalued professionals, and software that solves the wrong problems.

A recent framework breaking down the differences across eight dimensions, from triggers to time horizons, sparked intense debate among practitioners about whether the distinctions matter or whether modern realities have rendered them obsolete.

The answer, according to dozens of supply chain leaders who weighed in, is that the distinctions matter more than ever.

Mark Strange, a supply chain strategist focused on operational resilience, framed the core issue. “Purchasing, Procurement, and Category Management don’t just differ in scope, they operate at different layers of enterprise design,” he wrote. “Purchasing executes transactions. Procurement governs commercial control. Category Management shapes future economic advantage.”

He identified the structural problem many organizations face. “Confusion arises when organisations expect strategic outcomes from functions positioned purely for execution. Structure determines outcome long before capability does.”

The framework draws sharp lines between the three roles. Purchasing responds to low stock levels and urgent operational needs, asking “What do we need to order right now?” Its value lies in speed and agility. Procurement handles strategic projects, supplier discovery, and contract renewals, focused on aligning sourcing decisions with long-term organizational goals. Category Management tracks retail trends, supplier consolidation, and product lifecycle needs, driving competitive advantage through market insight and category expertise.

The time horizons differ dramatically: Purchasing operates short-term and reactively, Procurement works medium to long-term, and Category Management requires continuous long-term optimization.

Clarice Camacho, who leads global energy procurement and risk management, described the organizational dysfunction that results from blurring these lines.

“Titles like Buyer, Category Manager, Procurement Manager, and Contract Manager are often used interchangeably, until expectations start clashing and performance gaps appear,” she wrote. “Procurement is not one job. It’s a spectrum of specialised disciplines.”

She catalogued the consequences. “When roles are blurred: Tactical buying is mistaken for strategic sourcing. Negotiation is confused with category strategy. Contract administration replaces supplier relationship management. Risk management becomes reactive.”

The compensation implications are significant. “The result? Misaligned expectations, frustrated teams, and compensation that doesn’t match impact, with some roles underpaid and others overpaid.”

Strahinja Jovanovic, a supply chain and inventory expert, highlighted how the different “X-factors” for each role create inherent tensions. “In fast operations, ‘speed and agility’ (Purchasing) actively undermines ‘market insight’ (Cat Man),” he observed. “Same person can’t optimise for both, one always sacrifices for the other.”

Mohammad Indratama, a procurement and supply chain leader in mining and energy, explained the cognitive challenge. “Mixing these roles into one will inhibit what each role wants to achieve. Imagine at any time during the day, your strategic long-term thinking (Category Management) gets interrupted by an urgent request (Purchasing) or a stakeholder call for technical requirement alignment (Procurement), the brain simply cannot adjust that quickly.”

The confusion extends to technology. Alice Muyendekwa, a purchasing and supply chain student, connected the dots between role confusion and failed software implementations.

“This explains a lot about why Procurement Tech often misses the mark,” she wrote. “If a platform is built for quick purchasing processes but sold to a Category Manager who needs Market analysis, the ROI is never going to align. Using the same titles for three completely different value sets creates confusion in operational efficiency.”

Anthony Ibekwem, an IT procurement consultant, confirmed that blurred boundaries persist across organizations. “In reality, many organisations I encounter blur these lines. Category strategy, procurement projects, and day to day purchasing sit in the same workflow with the same KPIs.”

Yet some practitioners argued that organizational reality has moved beyond clean distinctions.

Carolina V., a strategic procurement specialist with 17 years of experience, pushed back on the neat categories. “Today a procurement specialist is doing all these jobs in one,” she wrote. “An operational is doing also strategic and category/vendor management and a strategic on top of vendors selection/management, contracts negotiation and costs analysis and reduction is also handling operational escalations, supply chain issues and MDM like inventory stock, forecasts, processes update and much more.”

She suggested the boundaries have dissolved out of necessity. “The times when operational was doing just operational and strategic just strategic are gone plus it’s good to know the big picture and manage, analyze entire procurement activities accordingly and as one!”

Matthias Svetic, a communication advisor, argued that clarity in role definition enables organizational effectiveness. “Clarity in roles creates clarity in value; when Category, Procurement, and Purchasing are defined with intention, organisations gain strategic focus instead of internal friction.”

Camacho emphasized that each function requires distinct capabilities. “A Buyer executes. A Category Manager shapes strategy. A Procurement Business Partner drives commercial alignment. A Contract Manager governs performance and risk. Each requires different skills, experience, and influence.”

She identified the systemic failure. “Yet many organisations bundle them into one function, one title, one pay band. This isn’t just an HR oversight, it’s a structural issue that weakens capability, limits career progression, and reduces procurement’s strategic value.”

David Wicker, an entrepreneurial sourcing professional, noted that some academic programs do teach these distinctions. “Memphis did a phenomenal job preparing me for the world of procurement. Which included defining the nuances of the spectrum of roles and functions.”

Calvin Lyons, an interim procurement officer and transformation leader, suggested the framework deserves broader organizational discussion. “This slide deserves a ‘Lunch & Learn’ discussion,” he wrote.

Olga Catena summarized the framework’s core insight. “Category focuses spend categories long-term, Procurement owns end-to-end value, Purchasing is tactical buying.”

The debate reveals a profession at a crossroads. Some organizations continue merging roles out of cost pressure, expecting one person to switch between reactive purchasing, strategic sourcing, and long-term category thinking multiple times per day. Others recognize that each function delivers distinct value and requires different skills, compensation, and technology support.

Strange captured the stakes. “Distinction defines expectation, and expectation defines impact.”

For professionals navigating career decisions and organizations designing procurement functions, the message is clear: understanding which job you’re actually doing, or hiring for, determines whether the function delivers tactical efficiency or strategic advantage.

Confusing them guarantees neither.

Continue the discussion with procurement and supply chain professionals on Chain.NET.

There’s a pattern emerging among the highest-performing supply chain leaders in 2026, and it’s not what most people think.

Many procurement and logistics managers treat AI like a faster search engine. They ask it to summarize supplier scorecards, generate RFQ templates, or flag exceptions in demand forecasts. Useful tasks. Incremental gains.

But the best supply chain leaders think about AI completely differently.

They use it to challenge their own thinking. They deploy it to strengthen their teams. They embed it into how their entire supply chain operates.

The difference isn’t subtle. It shows up in better decisions, faster execution, and supply chains that adapt to disruption instead of breaking under it.

Read more

Federico Marchesi serves as Vice President of Global Supply Chain at SIG Group. With a background spanning engineering, M&A, transformation programs, and end-to-end global operations across multiple industries, he brings a uniquely analytical yet pragmatic approach to modern supply chain leadership. Over the past decade, he has led complex transformation initiatives, designed adaptive supply chain models, and driven large-scale operational improvements across Europe.

How did you move into your current role? A short overview of your background and career.

My journey hasn’t been linear, and that is one of my greatest strengths. I hold a Master’s degree in Automation and System Control Engineering, and early on I expected to build my career in R&D. After leading several M&A and strategic projects, I realized I was drawn to supply chain because it offered exactly what I enjoyed in engineering, dealing with complex systems, making data-driven decisions, and seeing a tangible daily impact.
Over the last 10 years, I’ve worked across distribution, transformation, and global supply chain operations in three industries. For the past three years, I have been leading the European Supply Chain at Haier.

What is your current role and your main responsibilities?

I lead the End-to-End Supply Chain for Haier Europe, covering everything from factory to customer delivery. My scope includes:
• End-to-End Planning (demand, inventory, supply)
• Physical Logistics (warehousing, ocean freight, customs, inland logistics, last-mile distribution including D2C)
• Customer Service
To give scale, my team supports around $3B in revenue, manages over $250M in logistics spend, and controls roughly $600M in inventory.

What does a typical workday look like? Any morning routine you follow?

I’m not rigid with routines because supply chain days are unpredictable. However, I am disciplined about focus.
About 30 percent of my time is devoted to designing and driving digital transformation. I treat it not as continuous improvement but as targeted upgrades to how we operate.
Another 30 percent is dedicated to people. I aim to challenge, coach, and support my team so that we continue developing a true learning organization, something I am proud to lead.

What lessons did you take from the pandemic? What positive changes came out of it?

The pandemic taught us that macroeconomics and geopolitics influence us far more than we previously admitted. It broke long-standing supply chain assumptions—such as inventory always being bad, or forecast accuracy being the ultimate goal.
The biggest shift was embracing resilience as a design principle. We moved from pure efficiency toward building systems capable of surviving shocks. The positive outcome is a stronger focus on resilience-driven design rather than traditional lean dogma.

What are the biggest challenges in your current role? How do you address them?

Volatility is our biggest challenge. With a multi-channel go-to-market strategy and unpredictable consumer behavior, deterministic planning no longer works.
We address this through:
• Scenario Planning: Training teams to plan for multiple futures.
• Governance: Empowering bottom-up decisions from those closest to the data.
• Adaptive Supply Chain: Using AI and Machine Learning to guide decision-making.
This lets us respond faster and more intelligently to sudden shifts.

Which tools or technologies are you most excited about right now?

Our major investments focus on:
• Demand Driven MRP, the core engine of our adaptive model.
• Machine Learning, mixing commercial tools with custom-built algorithms for unique challenges.
• Large Language Models (LLMs), which we are piloting for automating transactional work and improving data-heavy reporting.
These technologies support faster, smarter, and more consistent decision-making across the supply chain.

How do you integrate sustainability or ethical practices into your operations?

Sustainability is driven by both ethics and efficiency. Ethics is non-negotiable—we evaluate operations through that lens and encourage open debate.
From an operational standpoint, maximizing output per resource spent naturally reduces waste and improves environmental performance. Efficiency and sustainability reinforce each other, not conflict.

How do you stay informed about new trends and technologies?

I benchmark across industries and maintain a strong network of passionate experts. I also spend personal time studying History, Philosophy, and Geopolitics. History reveals patterns, while Philosophy helps with the ethical and cultural dimensions of leading large teams. Technical knowledge alone is not enough.

Which skills matter most for supply chain leaders today?

First, systemic thinking, the ability to understand an ecosystem rather than just its components.
Second, data analytics, approached as an engineer looks at causality and relationships.
Whether through visualization or mental simulation, leaders must find the way data “speaks” to them so they can cut through noise and make decisions with clarity.

Which trends will most impact the profession in the coming years?

We are entering a period of talent scarcity and shifting career expectations.
At the same time, supply chains must master Human-Machine Collaboration. We must learn to let go of tasks that AI and ML do better, and focus entirely on where humans add unique value. The challenge is not technical, but cultural and behavioral.

What advice would you share with someone starting a career in supply chain?

You must be ready for high pressure, complex problems, and limited external recognition. If you need constant applause, this is not the field for you.
Find motivation in solving the puzzle and in the camaraderie of your team. If you can do that, supply chain is one of the most rewarding careers you can choose.

Federico Marchesi
LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/federico-marchesi-supplychain/
Chain.NET profile: https://www.chain.net/u/dffe88cc

Federico, along with many other supply chain leaders, participates in the regular events and discussions organized by GSCC. See the full event calendar at www.chain.net/c/events.

Join our global community on Chain.NET and become a GSCC member to access expert-led events, reports, replays, and professional groups: www.chain.net

In early 2023, executives at The SPAR Group believed they had solved a problem. Their KwaZulu-Natal distribution centre, the beating heart of a network supplying 2,000 stores across Southern Africa, would finally run on modern software. The new SAP system promised faster order processing, better inventory control, and support for future growth.

By September of that year, the company was asking a different question: How did a software upgrade turn into an R1.6 billion ($87 million) disaster?

SPAR’s experience offers an unsettling cautionary tale for supply chain leaders. It also reveals something broader about how companies misjudge technology risk. The failure wasn’t purely technical. It was a supply chain crisis wearing an IT costume.

SPAR Group operates 6 distribution centres supplying goods and services to more than 2,000 SPAR stores across Southern Africa. The company maintains a 345-strong fleet of trucks and 400 trailers that travel 35 million kilometres a year. It is, in essence, a wholesale and distribution business masquerading as a retailer. When that distribution network failed, nearly everything downstream failed with it.

What went wrong at KZN was both straightforward and catastrophic. The SAP system went live without the data quality to support it. Supplier master records were incomplete. Lead time assumptions didn’t match reality. Inventory thresholds were guesses.

Distribution delays multiplied because the system couldn’t match purchase orders to supplier capacity. Stock visibility evaporated. Replenishment cycles broke. Warehouse staff, unable to trust the system’s logic, reverted to manual workarounds that were slow and unreliable. Empty shelves became the norm in hundreds of SPAR-branded stores.

By the time the system stabilized nine months later, the damage was irreversible. Suppliers had adjusted their expectations downward. Franchisees had watched their customers shop elsewhere. Competing retailers had captured market share that would take years to reclaim.

The R1.6 billion figure masks the real injury: a nine-month gap during which the distribution network that had worked for decades suddenly didn’t. That gap exposed a fundamental vulnerability in how SPAR’s supply chain was architected. There was no redundancy. No fallback. One node failed, and the entire system failed.

The financial aftermath was compounded by poor project discipline. SPAR reported R1.6 billion in lost turnover for the year, with the KZN region alone seeing about R720 million ($39 million) shaved from its profit. The implementation itself cost approximately R1.8 billion ($98 million). When the company later abandoned part of the investment, it wrote off R94 million ($5.1 million) in “asset under construction”—a public admission that executives had misjudged the program’s scope and complexity.

But the most damaging consequence came from outside the company’s walls.

The Giannacopoulos family operates 46 SPAR-branded stores. They are independent franchisees who depend entirely on the distribution centre for inventory. When the centre failed, they watched their sales evaporate. Customers drifted to competitors. In early 2026, they filed a lawsuit seeking R168-170 million ($9.1-9.2 million) in damages, alleging that SPAR’s system failure cost them margin on purchases and rebate schemes that depend on volume.

The lawsuit divides neatly into two claims: R142.9 million ($7.7 million) for lost gross profit and margin, calculated by comparing historical growth against post-SAP performance, and R25.8 million ($1.4 million) for losses on rebate schemes tied to purchase volumes.

What makes the lawsuit significant isn’t the dollar amount. It’s what it reveals. SPAR’s IT failure became a third-party liability. The financial impact cascaded beyond the company’s P&L into the pockets of franchisees who had no control over the technology decision. That relationship is now in court.

For supply chain leaders, this pattern should trigger immediate questions. What happens when your distribution system fails? Who bears the cost? If your franchisees, suppliers, or logistics partners absorb the damage, you now carry legal and reputational risk that no insurance policy covers cleanly.

SPAR’s mistakes were not unique to one company. They reflect patterns that appear across supply chain transformations. First, companies often treat ERP implementations as technology projects rather than supply chain redesigns. The steering committee includes IT leaders focused on uptime and bug counts rather than supply chain leaders focused on inventory accuracy and customer service. Governance becomes an afterthought.

Second, companies phase implementations poorly. They choose critical nodes—like SPAR’s main distribution centre—as go-live locations, betting that if the system works there, it will work everywhere. It’s the opposite of how supply chains actually work. One critical node failure cascades across the network.

Third, data quality gets treated as a project task rather than a prerequisite. Companies load legacy data into new systems and hope for the best. SPAR’s supplier master file was incomplete. Its inventory thresholds were calibrated for older workflows. The new system didn’t fix those problems. It inherited them.

The deeper lesson lies in risk management. A significant number of supply chain leaders report that their organizations are prioritizing large ERP system implementations, with a small percentage reporting that their advanced planning and scheduling implementations had failed and would need to be restarted.

Those failures don’t appear in earnings reports as single-line items. They appear as lost sales, margin compression, and damaged partner relationships.

For CSCOs and procurement leaders evaluating their own ERP roadmaps, SPAR’s experience suggests a different approach. Treat the system as a supply chain transformation, not a software project. Appoint a steering committee led by the CSCO with accountability for inventory accuracy, replenishment performance, and partner service metrics. Phase implementations through lower-risk distribution nodes and run pilots before touching critical infrastructure. Budget time and money for data quality work before go-live, not after. And model how the change affects every link in your network—franchisees, suppliers, logistics partners—and design mitigations before they become necessary.

The question SPAR executives should have asked in early 2023 wasn’t “Is our system ready?” It was “What happens if this fails?” That second question changes how you plan, how you test, and ultimately, how much damage you absorb.

Have you led a supply chain transformation that fell short? What would you do differently? Share your experience in the comments - your insights could help peers avoid the same costly missteps.

Join the Chain.NET community for strategic discussions on supply chain systems, distribution network design, and ERP implementation governance. Visit www.chain.net, and check our events calendar at www.chain.net/c/events for upcoming forums on supply chain risk management and distribution network resilience.

The sewing machine operator in Guangdong Province is 55 years old. Her colleagues are aging too. Young workers don’t want factory jobs anymore. They prefer service industries, office work, anything but sitting at a production line.

This demographic shift is quietly revolutionizing how fashion gets made.

Jacqui Gray has spent 20 years navigating the global sourcing landscape. She started her career at Tesco’s first international sourcing office in Bangladesh in 2005. Today, she oversees production across China, Bangladesh, and emerging markets for a major fashion retailer. In a recent interview with Paul Lennen, host of The Sourcing Exchange, Gray offered a rare look at the forces reshaping apparel manufacturing.

“What we’ve observed, especially since COVID, is this aging workforce in factories,” Gray told Lennen. “I was getting quite worried about the future of garment making in China. Then we started seeing these machines on the production floor.”

The Automation Revolution Arrives

Walk into a Chinese garment factory today and you’ll find machines four to five times the size of traditional sewing equipment. Automated needles follow programmed templates. The system folds fabric, turns pieces, and stitches with precision no human hand can match.

“It takes away the need for skilled labor,” Gray explained. “Now you just need someone who places fabric into position. The machine does all the sewing beautifully. It works 24/7.”

The numbers tell the story. On a piece of outerwear, 60% to 70% of production now runs through automated machinery. Denim jeans have reached similar levels. Only the major seams still require manual work.

China leads this transformation by necessity. When young people won’t enter factories, owners invest in robots. But the technology is spreading. Gray spotted automated machinery in Bangladesh last week and in Madagascar earlier this year.

“Where you’ve got Chinese knowhow in factories, you will start to see these machines,” she said. “What started as a real need in China because of the labor crisis moves into an efficiency opportunity for other countries.”

Tariffs Reshuffle the Deck

The past year threw another variable into the sourcing equation. U.S. tariffs forced brands and suppliers to make hard choices about geographic footprints.

“It’s been a year of navigating who’s leading the decisions,” Gray said. “Most of our suppliers are not too dependent on the U.S., but some are. A Chinese supplier whose business is 60% American has seen volume drop this year.”

The obvious alternatives aren’t so obvious. Egypt now enjoys lower duty rates from the U.S., making it potentially attractive. But setting up denim manufacturing and laundry operations requires years, capital, training, and expertise. Production capacity doesn’t materialize overnight.

“Some of the changes don’t happen as fast,” Gray noted. “The suppliers working with the U.S. are still working with the U.S., but strategic changes will carry on over the next five years.”

Gray sees two supplier archetypes emerging. Some pursue the hub-and-spoke model, adding production in Egypt or other markets to their existing China-Vietnam-Cambodia networks. Others double down on their home base, investing in automation and efficiency rather than geographic expansion.

Both strategies carry risk. Both require capital. Neither offers guarantees.

The Impossible Pentagon

Sourcing executives face what Gray’s industry calls “the impossible pentagon.” Every decision involves trade-offs between carbon footprint, social compliance, cost, quality, and supply chain agility.

“Trying to get the best outcome across all five is impossible,” Gray said. “It comes back to finding the optimal balance.”

That balance shifts constantly. Fabric prices face downward pressure as retailers seek to protect margins. Sustainability regulations from the European Union demand new compliance infrastructure. What started as tracking 60 tier-one factories now extends to 450 suppliers across multiple tiers.

“The challenge is the tier twos, threes, and fours,” Gray said. “They haven’t necessarily been engaged by legislation. They haven’t measured things in certain ways.”

Water usage and chemical management have become priority areas. The data collection requirements alone require dedicated staff. Technology solutions exist, but the market remains fragmented. Gray’s company hasn’t committed to a platform yet, watching which providers will survive and grow.

What AI Can and Cannot Do

Artificial intelligence hasn’t cracked the sourcing code. Gray tested it on practical questions. The results disappointed.

“I was looking for a particular news source in Bangladesh on a particular product,” she said. “The answers were really not credible.”

AI performs better on economic parameters and general data. It offers reasonable suggestions for institutions to contact when exploring new markets. But it can’t replace the detective work, relationship building, and on-the-ground intelligence that define effective sourcing.

“Traditional ways of using your detective skills absolutely still matter,” Gray said. “Use AI as one of the tools. By no means rely on it.”

The Character It Takes

Gray’s path into sourcing started with a geography degree focused on people, locations, and developing countries. A chance conversation with a linen company executive who had just returned from three years in China sparked her ambition.

Getting there required what she calls “bravery.” Her mother warned about snakes during floods and arsenic in the water supply. Gray went anyway, landing in Dhaka in 2005.

“You leave behind family and friends,” she said. “You have to adjust, figure out how to survive, then succeed when you’re up against people you don’t know, working with suppliers, working with all the problems and challenges.”

The job offers no routine. Last week meant factory visits in Bangladesh dealing with production challenges. Next week brings 20 buying meetings in China over three weeks. The landscape feels different every six months.

“Speed matters when it comes to finding margin opportunity,” Gray said. “You have to see it, sense it, and do it.”

Key Takeaways

Automation solves labor problems but requires capital. Chinese factories invest in robotics because young workers won’t take manufacturing jobs. The technology improves quality and runs continuously, but suppliers need volume and long-term business relationships to justify the investment.

Geographic diversification takes longer than headlines suggest. Tariffs create incentives to shift production, but building manufacturing capability in new markets requires years of investment, training, and infrastructure development.

This article is based on an interview conducted by Paul Lennen, host of The Sourcing Exchange. Watch the full conversation here.

What’s your experience with sourcing transformation? Are you seeing automation change your supply base? How are you balancing the impossible pentagon of cost, quality, sustainability, speed, and compliance?

Share your perspective in the comments or continue the discussion on Chain.NET.

Professionals across supply chain are urged to move into AI roles. The promises are compelling: substantially higher income, greater job security, strategic influence.

But which roles?

Supply chain roles like Supply Chain Agent Manager, AI Compliance Officer, and Robot Manager are emerging with real budgets as AI transforms supply chain work. Yet the path forward remains unclear.

Four emerging roles will define supply chain leadership in the agentic AI revolution.

Managing agents requires both business acumen and technical fluency. In 2026, three forces will converge: capability maturity with agents actively performing tasks like supplier evaluation and risk monitoring, strategic pressure from leaders embedding Agentic AI across the procurement lifecycle, and operating model evolution with digital platforms moving toward extreme automation and deep integration.

These roles won’t appear overnight. They will evolve from existing procurement, operations, and logistics roles. The common thread across all of them is ownership: ownership of agent outcomes, accountability for system behavior, and continuous optimization as business conditions shift.

Role 1: AI Supply Chain Leader

AI supply chain leaders turn agentic AI from technical capability into business value. They oversee the application of AI across the entire supply chain function. They define and execute strategy for deploying agent use cases. They combine technical understanding with operational ownership.

This role doesn’t have a defined career path. It attracts change agents focused on transformation. They report directly to CSCOs and translate procurement goals into agent objectives.

Required skills:

• Deep supply chain domain knowledge (procurement, logistics, demand planning)

• Strategic thinking about how agents reshape workflows

• Ability to articulate AI business value in financial terms

• Cross-functional influence across procurement, IT, and operations

This person sits between the CSCO and the technical team. They ask the strategic question: “What supplier or procurement challenge becomes solvable when we deploy agentic AI?”

Role 2: Agent Operations Manager

Agent operations managers are the human supervisors of agentic workflows. They monitor execution, intervene when needed, and ensure accuracy, compliance, and business continuity.

These roles typically emerge from procurement operations or supply planning. They bring deep understanding of the workflows being automated and the outcomes those workflows must deliver.

When an AI agent evaluates suppliers, the agent operations manager confirms the logic is sound and aligns with business priorities. When an agent processes RFQs, they ensure compliance requirements are embedded in the agent’s decision logic.

Required skills:

• Deep operational knowledge of the workflow being automated

• Ability to read and interpret AI recommendations

• Understanding how AI agents work, what data they need, and how to interpret structured and unstructured data output

• Compliance awareness and audit readiness

• Comfort with continuous monitoring and rapid exception handling

This is not a new role requiring new hiring. It’s an evolution of existing procurement coordinator and operations roles.

Role 3: No-Code Procurement Designer

No-code procurement designers design, test, and deploy AI agents using no-code platforms. They evolve from business analysts, process owners, and automation leads who already understand how work should flow.

An agentic procurement engineer acts as the bridge between human judgment and autonomous systems, designing and orchestrating intelligent agent workflows that automate sourcing, negotiation, compliance, and spend management.

With no-code AI platforms, they move beyond documenting requirements. They actively shape agent goals, constraints, and behaviors. They test agent logic against real procurement scenarios.

Required skills:

• Process design and continuous improvement mindset

• Understanding how to write clear prompts and communicate requirements so AI systems understand procurement nuance, like how “ASAP” from one customer means 48 hours while from another means 2 weeks

• Ability to work iteratively with agents and refine outputs

• Patience for testing and learning by doing

• No formal data science training required—learning by doing and asking questions is how you build skill and confidence

Role 4: Supply Chain Workflow Architect

Workflow architects take a holistic view of how humans and agents work together to accomplish supply chain goals. These architects design workflows where humans and AI agents complement each other, ensuring AI enhances rather than replaces human expertise in complex logistics decisions.

At the core is deep understanding of the business function and workflows. Strong business analysis is essential to redesign work for an agentic model, not simply automate existing manual processes.

Agentic AI succeeds when embedded directly into integrated business planning workflows used by supply chain teams, paired with decision memory that allows AI to learn from outcomes, and paired with digital twins of the physical supply chain to ensure AI recommendations respect real-world constraints.

Required skills:

• Supply chain strategy and operations knowledge

• System thinking about how procurement, demand planning, and logistics interconnect

• Ability to identify where agents add value vs. where human judgment remains critical

• Change management and organizational design

• Understanding of data architecture and integration challenges

The common thread: ownership

All four roles share one critical element: ownership. Ownership of agent outcomes. Accountability for system behavior. Continuous optimization as business conditions change.

While some manual tasks will inevitably be automated, organizations view this as an opportunity to elevate procurement teams. Rather than spending hours on data entry or invoice matching, procurement professionals can shift focus to higher-value activities like strategic sourcing and supplier relationship management. New positions like AI data trainers and ethical oversight leads are expected to emerge, offering exciting growth opportunities.

What this means for your career

If you work in procurement or supply chain operations, 2026 is when you decide whether you lead the agentic revolution or manage around it.

You don’t need to wait for a formal role to emerge. Start now. Ask your CSCO if you can pilot an AI agent for your highest-friction process. Volunteer to be the agent operations manager. Learn the no-code platform your company is evaluating. Help design how humans and agents will work together.

The person who figures this out inside your organization will be the one leaders turn to when they ask “What should we do about agentic AI?”

Explore emerging supply chain AI tools at Chaine.AI (www.chaine.ai)—our directory covers agentic platforms, no-code tools, and orchestration solutions shaping 2026 procurement.

Which role matches your supply chain future?

Are you drawn to strategic leadership? Operations management? No-code platform design? Workflow architecture? Which emerging role do you see yourself evolving into? What skills are you developing now to lead the agentic revolution? Share your thoughts in the comments.

Join the Chain.NET community for strategic discussions on AI-driven procurement roles, agentic workflow design, and supply chain leadership transformation. We run regular panels where CSCOs and procurement leaders share their emerging role strategies and hiring plans. Connect with peers building their AI capabilities now.

Visit www.chain.net to join the conversation, and check our events calendar at www.chain.net/c/events for upcoming masterclasses on agentic AI roles and procurement leadership.

The automation is coming. Anyone denying it is delusional.

If the industry managed to build human-free warehouses, then what stops it from building human-light forwarding companies? The answer is nothing. The technology exists. The economics make sense. The only question is whether companies will implement it intelligently or turn it into another cost-cutting disaster.

Anthony Miller at Wiser Logtech recently discussed this online and his conclusion was blunt. Anyone who thinks this is not coming is in for a shock.

The right approach should be replacing outsourcing, enhancing in-house teams, automating everything possible, and having people work from exceptions. What the industry will likely see instead is immediate cost cutting, big decisions made without proper planning, higher risk, and apologies when it does not work out.

The pattern is predictable. The consequences will be severe.

The Warehouse Precedent

Brian Newman, who works in supply chain transformation, stated the obvious. “It’s coming. If you can automate a warehouse you can automate the chain.”

Miller agreed. “You can automate any process that is highly repetitive and data driven, whether the data is deterministic or not.”

The warehouse automation wave proved the concept. Facilities now operate with minimal human intervention. Robots pick, pack, and move inventory. Systems route orders and manage exceptions. Humans handle edge cases and maintenance.

Freight forwarding involves similar work patterns. Repetitive data processing. Document verification. Status updates. Exception management. Rate quotes. Booking confirmations. Most of this work follows predictable patterns that AI can handle.

The technology is ready. The question is how companies will deploy it.

The Big Tech Model

Miller noted what has happened to big tech companies and their headcount. It feels like just a matter of time before sizeable forwarders start doing the same.

The parallel is direct. Tech companies overhired during growth periods. When efficiency became the priority, they cut deeply. Meta eliminated thousands of positions. Amazon reduced headcount. Google streamlined operations. Microsoft trimmed teams.

These companies had strong technology foundations. They still cut aggressively. Freight forwarders with weaker technology will face more pressure to reduce costs through automation.

Paul Claydon at a supply chain technology firm agreed with the assessment. Miller responded with what everyone is thinking. “I’m just waiting to see how the big 3PLs justify huge headcount cuts.”

The justification will be simple. Automation enables efficiency. Market conditions require cost reduction. Shareholders demand profitability. The cuts will come.

The Human-Light Reality

Mark Woolnough at a freight operations and recruitment firm made an important distinction. “Human free and human light are very different. Also human light is probably the accurate terminology.”

He pointed to Notion’s new agent updates as an eye opener. “Obviously not industry specific but if used by someone internally with the right mindset...”

The future is not human-free. The future is human-light. Small teams managing automated systems. People handling exceptions rather than routine work. Expertise concentrated in complex problem-solving rather than distributed across transactional tasks.

Peter Creeden, a global supply chain executive, emphasized that the shift is not just about automation but redesigning the forwarding business model around people and technology, not just cutting headcount.

He challenged the sector to rethink resilience. “It’s not just risk management but building capability, connectivity, and accountability. Human-light shouldn’t hollow out the workforce but empower skilled people to work with smarter systems and AI, improving exception handling, compliance, and trust, not cutting costs.”

Miller agreed but added a dose of realism. “But we both already know how this is going to play out. Hard lessons will be learned.”

The Implementation Problem

Stewart B. at Ziegler Group referenced a post about using AI to remove problems in supply chain as opposed to using it to figure out how to do workarounds quicker. “Both need deep planning, a progressive and adaptable strategy and excellent execution rooted in change management, which relies heavily on experience of the business. There’s lots of AI stuff flooding the industry, lots looks a bit clunky and gimmicky, but in the mid or long term, someone is going to start getting this stuff right.”

Miller’s response captured the industry’s frustration. “How to do the workarounds quicker. I swear, the amount of times I heard workarounds from forwarders using CargoWise. Hate it.”

He continued: “This comment needs to be turned into a standalone post. It is 100% true. But making the AI work in the right way will be hard. We’ve seen RTTVP fail. We’ve seen Blockchain fail. We’ve seen digital freight forwarding fail. I believe that we cannot afford to see AI fail, so it will succeed. I just hope that it will succeed in the right way, and not become another round of workarounds.”

The history of technology implementation in logistics is littered with failures. Real-time transit visibility promised transformation but delivered marginal value. Blockchain was supposed to revolutionize supply chain transparency but became a solution searching for a problem. Digital freight forwarding disrupted nothing.

AI cannot afford to follow the same path. The industry needs it to work.

The Foundation Problem

Francine Nielander at Lean Six Sigma consulting identified the critical prerequisite. “If you have your processes and data structured and you can automate or even optimize using AI, great. But those are not the companies that are in trouble and are likely to go for a quick AI fix. It’s not going to help you if you don’t have your ducks in a row. It will make processes even less transparent. Why was this order placed? I don’t know, the AI did it. Good luck in making sense of that.”

Miller agreed. “There is no quick fix in our industry and anyone suggesting otherwise needs to go do something else.”

Samil Shah raised the question directly. “Traditionally, getting value out of software required a good data foundation which in turn relied on good, consistent processes. With Agentic AI, can businesses skip the foundational work and jump straight to value?”

Miller’s answer was one word. “No.”

This is the trap waiting for companies desperate for cost savings. AI built on bad processes and dirty data will amplify problems, not solve them. Companies without solid foundations will implement AI and create expensive chaos.

Jennifer Morris at Ship Happens warned about the all-or-nothing approach. “I think the issue is many companies are just diving in head first and making it all or nothing. I have a feeling some of these legacy companies that were kind of flailing already and have turned to AI so they can make major cuts, not mentioning any names at all, are going to have problems. I think a more strategic approach and implementation will be what truly works. Not slap on AI, they barely understand, and hope for the best.”

Miller identified specific companies to watch. “I’m looking forward to seeing what DSV and Maersk do. I’m concerned about the likes of K+N and Ceva/Bolloré. Also quietly excited about some smaller players like Geodis. We’ll see how it plays out, but yes, those who are diving in head first are in trouble. No point getting first mover advantage as an LSP. It’s about long term vision.”

The Human Element

Nacho Gil de Sagredo, who specializes in digital and sustainable supply chains, raised an important constraint. “I think this would work with human-free BCOs. While clients have people in procurement there’ll be people in sales and operations on the LSP side. I think this is why digital forwarding has not exploded yet. Humans like humans when there’s risk involved.”

The observation points to a fundamental limitation. As long as customers have human procurement teams, they will want human contact on the supplier side. Automation can handle routine transactions, but relationship management still requires people.

This creates the human-light model rather than human-free. Small teams managing customer relationships while AI handles operational execution.

John Vonk at Seeburger Benelux agreed. “Totally agree that human-light logistics is on the horizon. The challenge isn’t if we can do it, but how we do it responsibly. The companies that win will be those who blend automation with human judgment rather than swinging too hard on cost cutting.”

The Execution Details

Luca Conner at Pack’N provided practical guidance. “The sweet spot is automation for the routine and people for the weird stuff. The mistake is cutting seats before you can measure exceptions and promise kept. What’s worked for us is simple flows, clear owners, and tracking exception rate and cycle time before we pull labor out.”

He asked where the cleanest early wins are appearing: quotes, status pings, document checks, or invoice matching?

Miller responded that document checks is a tale as old as time with OCR solutions. It should improve greatly and remove the need for armies of people in low cost of labor countries doing manual validation. He identified customs and compliance as the biggest area to change. “It is a major drag on global supply chains.”

This practical approach, measuring exception rates and cycle times before removing headcount, represents responsible implementation. Most companies will skip this step.

Kenneth West identified the strategic shift. “Legacy tech stacks are hitting their ceiling. The shift from human-heavy to human-light isn’t just about cost, it’s about control. Agentic AI flips the model: instead of outsourcing complexity, companies can internalize intelligence. The ones who build exception-based workflows now will lead the next wave of operational resilience.”

Miller called out the buzzword density but acknowledged the underlying point. Companies that get this right will have operational advantages competitors cannot match.

The Reality Check

Ian Aguilar offered necessary skepticism. “I am a big fan of the current gen AI systems. Very useful, far more so than Google was historically. They do get things wrong frequently, though. Like, on the daily, and can be wrong in any given topic, even if you call them out on it multiple times. I’ve had both ChatGPT and Grok be wrong on simple addition, subtraction, multiplication even.”

His conclusion: “So far they are a nice to have tool, yet very far from a necessity. I absolutely could not trust business activities or decisions to it. Very interested to see where we are in 3-5 years though.”

Miller acknowledged the skepticism is healthy. But he also pointed to the rapid pace of improvement. What seems unreliable today may be dependable in months, not years.

Vlad Nikalayeu at Skypace identified the accountability problem. “You know what’s the main problem? It’s still people who’ll be eventually taking responsibility for what AI does.”

He imagined a future where LinkedIn profiles include AI performance metrics. Companies will want proof that candidates can work effectively with AI systems. The HR function transforms into validating human-AI collaboration capabilities.

The Nearshoring Alternative

Troels Daugaard noted that sizeable forwarders are using nearshoring instead to cut costs. Miller questioned why asset-light companies would want to nearshore.

The observation reveals competing cost-reduction strategies. Nearshoring moves work to lower-cost locations but maintains human headcount. AI reduces headcount but requires technology investment and change management.

Companies will pursue both. Nearshore operations will implement AI. The combination will drive costs down faster than either approach alone.

The Warning

If legacy ERP and SaaS players in logistics and supply chain are not using AI or planning AI functionalities, they are already late. The technology is moving faster than incumbent software providers can adapt.

If you are an LSP or BCO doing your own orchestration and you are already doing diligence or trialing solutions, you are ahead of the curve.

The gap between leaders and laggards will widen quickly. Companies that move now have time to learn and iterate. Companies that wait will face crisis implementations when competitive pressure becomes unbearable.

The human-light forwarding company is not a future possibility. It is a current reality being built by early movers. The question is not whether your company will follow. The question is whether you will move strategically or desperately.

Hard lessons are coming. Some companies will learn them in controlled experiments. Others will learn them through layoffs, customer losses, and operational failures.

The automation is here. The execution will separate winners from casualties.

Join the conversation on AI implementation in logistics, workforce transformation, and operational automation at Chain.NET, where supply chain professionals share real-world AI deployment experiences, debate implementation strategies, and connect at events focused on responsible automation. The future is being built now.

The global manufacturing landscape is shifting beneath companies’ feet. Tariffs, industrial policy, and geopolitical tensions are forcing supply chain leaders to rethink decades of assumptions about where to make products. Yet most companies lack the basic visibility needed to respond.

A January 2026 report from McKinsey & Company, titled “Decoding disruption to reshape manufacturing footprints,” surveyed 100 global supply chain leaders and analyzed 188 KPIs across industries. The findings paint a troubling picture. While 95% of companies report visibility into their tier-one suppliers, only 42% can see into tier-two suppliers or deeper. Worse, that visibility has actually declined since 2022, even as trade tensions escalate.

The Visibility Gap Is Getting Worse

Companies seemed to have learned important lessons during the pandemic. Supply shortages forced executives to map their supplier networks and identify concentration risks. But those efforts have faded.

Read more

The question isn’t whether AI will reshape supply chain work. It’s which jobs disappear, which ones transform, and how fast it happens.

A procurement manager spends two hours daily matching purchase orders to invoices. An AI agent does it in seconds. A demand planner builds forecasts from historical data and manual adjustments. An agentic system learns from thousands of patterns and recalibrates continuously. A logistics coordinator tracks shipments across multiple systems and creates status reports. An AI agent monitors, flags exceptions, and escalates automatically.

These tasks are vanishing. The question is whether the people performing them disappear with them.

Which Supply Chain Roles Face Real Risk

The jobs most vulnerable to AI share one characteristic: they are transactional, repetitive, and rule-based.

Procurement Clerks and Logistics Transaction Processors. These roles are already shrinking. Procurement Clerk roles face a 95% estimated chance of being reduced by AI, with clerical duties like creating purchase orders, verifying records, and data entry being highly automatable by AI-powered procurement systems. This isn’t speculation. It’s already happening across both procurement and logistics operations.

Purchasing Agents (routine sourcing). Purchasing Agents face a 70% estimated chance of being reduced by AI, as digital procurement platforms can automatically solicit quotes, compare suppliers, and even negotiate routine purchases. The agent does what humans once did—source, compare, recommend. The difference is it does it at scale, instantly, without fatigue or bias.

Inventory and Logistics Analysts (reactive management). Traditional inventory and logistics roles focus on managing spreadsheets, responding to stockouts, and manually adjusting thresholds. AI systems now predict demand better than humans, optimize safety stock mathematically, trigger reorders before problems occur, and route shipments more efficiently. Reactive management is becoming obsolete.

Logistics Coordinators and Order Processors (routine tracking and reporting). Tracking shipments across multiple systems, creating status reports, coordinating routine handoffs, and managing basic logistics tasks—these are perfect AI tasks. The role will not disappear, but the number of coordinators per operation will drop dramatically.

These roles share a pattern: they involve processing data, applying known rules, and executing routine decisions. That’s exactly what AI does best.

Which Roles Will Actually Grow

Not all supply chain jobs are equally at risk. Some are becoming more important.

Supply Chain Strategy and Risk Leaders. As AI handles routine decisions, human judgment becomes valuable for complex trade-offs. A CSCO who can design strategy around AI capabilities—using agents to execute while preserving human oversight of critical decisions—will be in high demand. The CPO role is unlikely to be replaced by AI; instead, it will be profoundly reshaped, transitioning from traditional cost control and sourcing oversight to a more strategic, digitally-enabled leadership role, with 90% of procurement leaders already exploring or using AI agents.

Supplier and Carrier Relationship Managers. Negotiation, trust-building, and strategic partnership development cannot be automated. An AI agent can handle transactional supplier and logistics provider interactions, but it cannot navigate complex business relationships. Professionals who excel at partnership strategy will become more valuable.

Supply Chain Data Stewards. Supply chain data stewards will employ data science using AI to analyze supplier networks, onboard data governance strategies, predict disruptions, and track product movements, proposing cost savings on a weekly basis. The demand for people who understand data, can govern AI outputs, and ensure quality will grow as AI adoption accelerates across procurement and logistics.

AI Enablement Specialists. AI enablement engineers source or help develop appropriate agents to deploy, mapping workflows and ensuring data is cleansed enough to support proper decision-making. Supply chains will need professionals who understand both operations and AI—people who can bridge business requirements and technology capabilities in procurement and logistics environments.

The pattern here is opposite to risk roles: these positions involve judgment, strategy, relationships, and oversight. That’s where human value concentrates as AI scales.

The Timeline Question Nobody Can Answer Honestly

The main debate centers on speed. Some experts warns of massive job displacement in five years. Other argue adoption will be slow and the economy will adapt.

For supply chain, the honest answer is: it depends on your organization.

A Fortune 500 manufacturer with mature supply chain technology and executive commitment to AI transformation could eliminate 30% of transactional procurement and logistics roles within 24 months. A mid-market company still managing supply chain operations through spreadsheets might take five years just to implement basic automation.

What’s certain is this: the change is accelerating. Over 90% of CPOs are planning or assessing GenAI, yet fewer than four in ten have moved beyond pilots, underscoring a gap between intent and operational impact. The intent is clear. The execution lag is real. But that lag is narrowing.

Within three years, any supply chain professional whose entire value proposition is processing transactions will be vulnerable. Within five years, that vulnerability becomes acute.

What Procurement and Logistics Professionals Should Do Now

If you’re a procurement specialist, logistics coordinator, demand planner, or transportation analyst whose job centers on transaction processing, you have a choice window that’s closing.

Skill up toward strategy, judgment, and relationship work. Learn how your organization’s supply chain works holistically, not just your slice of it. Understand how AI agents are reshaping procurement and logistics processes. Develop the ability to oversee and refine AI outputs rather than just executing them.

Specialize in areas AI struggles with. Supplier and carrier negotiation. Contract strategy. Risk assessment under uncertainty. Supply chain network design. Logistics optimization under complex constraints. These require judgment and stakeholder management. They don’t automate easily.

Become fluent in AI. Not as a coder. As an intelligent user. Understand what AI agents can do, what they can’t, and what they’re missing. Become the person who asks “what’s the AI not seeing?” That skill is increasingly valuable in procurement and logistics.

Move toward oversight roles. As organizations deploy more AI agents, they need people to govern them. Audit them. Ensure they’re behaving correctly and making sound decisions. That’s a growth area across procurement and logistics functions.

The Uncomfortable Truth

Saying “the supply chain economy will adapt and create new jobs” is technically accurate but personally unhelpful if your job is the one being eliminated.

Yes, new roles will emerge. Yes, the economy adapts. But adaptation takes time. The person whose job gets automated in 2027 doesn’t benefit from a new role being created in 2030.

That’s why the time to move is now—before the market becomes crowded with procurement and logistics professionals realizing the same thing.

Organizations that are ahead in AI adoption are already recruiting for strategy and governance roles. They’re already struggling to find people who can bridge operations and AI. That’s your window to reposition yourself.

Close it and you’re competing with thousands of other procurement and logistics professionals for the remaining transactional roles—which will pay less than they do today because, well, AI can almost do them.

Is your supply chain job at risk?

What role do you play in your supply chain? Does your job focus on transactions and routine decisions, or strategy and judgment? What skills are you developing now to adapt to AI-driven operations? Are you in procurement, logistics, or another supply chain function?

Share your perspective in the comments. Your honest assessment matters—especially if it helps other professionals see their situation clearly.

Join the Chain.NET community for strategic discussions on AI adoption, reskilling, and the future of supply chain careers. We host regular forums where procurement and logistics professionals share experiences navigating AI transformation, discuss which roles are evolving, and explore career strategies for the AI era. Connect with peers proactively reshaping their careers.

Visit www.chain.net and check our events calendar at www.chain.net/c/events for upcoming sessions on AI adoption, skill development, and supply chain career strategy.

Nike just redrew the corporate power map. The sportswear giant eliminated two cornerstone C-suite positions and handed their responsibilities to a newly empowered Chief Operating Officer. The move has executives across industries debating whether this signals a broader shift in how companies should organize leadership.

The restructuring, part of CEO Elliott Hill’s “Win Now” strategy, removed the Chief Technology Officer role held by Muge Dogan and the Chief Commercial Officer position occupied by Craig Williams. Both executives are leaving the company.

In their place, long-time supply chain leader Venkatesh Alagirisamy, known as “Venky,” steps into an expanded COO role starting December 8. He now oversees supply chain, planning, operations, manufacturing, sustainability, and technology.

The changes don’t stop there. Regional heads for Greater China, EMEA, North America, and Asia Pacific/Latin America now report directly to Hill. Global Sales and Nike Direct (e-commerce and retail stores) now report to CFO Matt Friend.

The reaction from operations and supply chain executives has been swift and divided.

The Case for Consolidation

Dr. Francois Gourd, a strategy and executive management consultant, welcomed the return to simpler structures. “In the ‘old times’ there were only CEO, COO and CFO and it was working very well. The inflation of CXOs that came afterwards created silos, unnecessary structure, inefficiency, additional costs and confusion. The most efficient organizations are the simplest ones.”

His comment drew strong agreement, with nearly 80 reactions from executives who have watched C-suite proliferation complicate decision-making.

Dirk Fischer, COO at Huf Group, appreciated the validation of his role but raised a practical question. “Being a COO, this is of course nice to hear. But reading what you said, for what you need then a CEO? But one thing is also clear. It is the person that qualifies for these roles, not the title.”

Michael Stanier, a managing partner and brand builder, questioned why Nike ever diluted the COO role. “The surprising thing here is why Nike ever diluted the role of COO in the first place. It is the obvious C-Level operational integration role to enable fast decision-making and to deliver accountability.”

Technology Moves from Silo to Operations

The decision to fold technology under operations drew particular attention. Frederic Gomer, who analyzed the restructuring, framed the shift clearly: “Tech is no longer ‘IT’s job.’ It’s ops work. If tech touches service, lead time, inventory, delivery, allocation, store flow, forecast… it belongs with the people who run the system.”

Habeeb Rahman, a Group Deputy CTO, endorsed the logic. “Right move. Technology is the core driver of business. If COO does not understand technology, it becomes difficult to compete in the market.”

Nico Bac, founder of Digital Procurement Now and formerly at P&G, saw the move as part of a broader trend. “Technology is a real game changer and needs to be better embedded into every part of the business. There is still some way to go here for most big businesses.”

Marcela Escobar-Alava, a CIO and CDO, shared her perspective on integration. “I’ve always seen my role much more integrated into operations than a standalone tech silo. I love the less aligning part. Personalities and fiefdoms always get in the way of alignment and progress.”

The Skeptics Raise Valid Concerns

Not everyone sees the consolidation as wise. Ghassan Kabbara, a fractional CIO, warned of role overload. “This feels like the Peter Principle in action. Leaders are being loaded with responsibilities far beyond their core strengths. A strong COO now owns tech, sustainability, planning, supply chain and integration. That’s not operations anymore. That’s five professions in one.”

He extended the concern to the CFO’s expanded remit. “Same with the CFO: finance plus sales, customer experience and growth execution. This isn’t promotion. It’s sideways overload. Role saturation.”

Davide Petruzzi, founder of OrygoAI, shared similar reservations. “That looks risky. Too much stuff under one person. Plus tech is very fast moving and most COOs don’t have technical backgrounds. Let’s see if it works out well for them.”

Josep Ragull, a supply chain and ESG executive, questioned whether fewer voices improve decisions. “Not sure though how reducing the number of voices in the management team can help run the business better. Less debate, less opinions, faster decisions indeed, but better ones?”

He added a pointed concern about the commercial reporting line. “Putting Sales and Marketing under Finance is the best way to kill any creativity, innovation and disruption, which is what made Nike great.”

George Saives, a consulting executive, was more blunt about sales reporting to the CFO. “Sales reporting to the CFO! YIKES! CHIEF PREVENTION OFFICER.”

Integration as the Scarce Capability

Michael Allen, a global operations and supply chain executive, offered perhaps the most nuanced analysis. “This is less about org design and more about accountability. What Nike is signaling is that integration has become the scarce capability. When demand, supply, capital, technology, and sustainability are decoupled, performance degrades quietly until it breaks loudly.”

He continued, “Placing technology under operations isn’t a demotion of tech. It’s an admission that value is created where systems meet execution. Code doesn’t move product. Operating models do.”

Stefano Bianchetti, a senior supply chain lead, reinforced this view. “The point is not that the COO role is getting ‘bigger.’ The point is that someone has to own the real trade-offs when demand, capacity, technology and capital collide. When that ownership is missing, organizations fill up with functionally correct roles that are systemically irresponsible.”

Context Matters

Several executives cautioned against treating Nike’s move as a universal template.

Patrik Paňko, a commercial and omnichannel strategy specialist, emphasized timing. “This feels less like a universal org blueprint and more like a phase-specific decision. When scale, inventory risk and capital efficiency dominate, integration under a strong COO makes sense. In a growth or disruption phase, separating Commercial, Tech and Ops often creates more speed and tension, in a good way.”

Puneet Dua, an FMCG specialist, agreed. “If this OM is what Nike needs to turnaround, great for them. Others don’t copy paste. Find your own OM. Context is important.”

Bruno Pontinha, a senior client partner, noted the model doesn’t fit all industries. “This logic is not totally true for Telco. The CTO remains a key role in this industry as CSPs still deeply rely on the mobile and fixed network tech infrastructure that enables their services.”

The Execution Question

Sotiris Karababas, a senior business leader and interim supply chain executive, raised a critical implementation concern. “IT moves under the COO, and the press release promises ‘faster decision-making’ and ‘operational synergy.’ But let’s be realistic: A change at the top doesn’t guarantee a more efficient company.”

He continued, “The real impact depends entirely on the structure one layer below. If you install an IT Director between the technical teams and the COO, you haven’t shortened the loop. You’ve likely lengthened it.”

Ingo Winterhoff, a former Adidas executive, emphasized that execution requires more than restructuring. “Customer centricity, product obsession and proper inventory levels are key ingredients to lasting success. Executing this or any operating model successfully requires team play at the highest level.”

What This Means for Operations Leaders

Maria S. George, a global supply chain strategy executive, posed the question many are asking. “The faster now and more complex cycles ‘idea to market’ call for streamlined decisions and end-to-end ownership to best serve ever demanding customers. The BIG QUESTION is: do companies have ‘ready now’ COOs to take on the larger scope?”

Gabriele Tagliavia, a global COO, suggested the evolution continues. “Running the operating model is clearly the future and I would push it even more: running the operating model by making a clear separation between what is still human-led vs AI.”

The debate over Nike’s restructuring reveals a profession in transition. The COO role is expanding from operational execution to enterprise integration. Whether that expansion creates clarity or chaos depends entirely on the leaders who fill these seats.

As Colin Emberson, who scales complex multi-market businesses, summarized: “Running ops is table stakes. Owning the operating model is the job now.”

Continue the discussion with operations and supply chain leaders on Chain.NET.

Here’s a question worth asking honestly.

Where do the most useful insights actually come from when you’re running a supply chain today?

Not industry reports. Not consultant frameworks. Not conference keynotes.

From other practitioners.

The leaders who consistently outperform their peers share one trait: they’re plugged into networks where real knowledge flows. Where someone who faced the same challenge last quarter shares what actually worked—and what didn’t.

This isn’t a soft skill. It’s a strategic advantage.

Static knowledge can’t keep pace with dynamic reality

Supply chains are moving too fast for traditional learning models.

AI adoption. Tariff volatility. Regulatory pressure. Geopolitical disruption. Talent shortages. Sustainability mandates. Most of what defines supply chain leadership today wasn’t in textbooks five years ago. By the time something gets formalized into a framework or published in a report, it’s already outdated.

The half-life of supply chain knowledge is shrinking. What worked in 2023 may be irrelevant in 2025. The strategy that succeeded in one region may fail in another. The technology that transformed one organization may create chaos in yours.

This reality demands a different approach to learning.

Peer learning keeps pace because it’s grounded in live experience. It’s not theory filtered through consultants or academics. It’s practitioners sharing what they’re seeing right now, in real operations, with real constraints.

The pattern is consistent

The strongest supply chain leaders don’t figure things out alone anymore. They can’t. The complexity is too high. The pace is too fast. The variables are too interconnected.

Instead, they build networks where knowledge flows continuously.

They compare notes with peers facing similar challenges. They challenge assumptions before committing to strategies. They test ideas in real time with people who understand the trade-offs. They learn from failures that never make it into case studies.

This isn’t about collecting contacts or attending events for visibility. It’s about building genuine relationships with practitioners who will share unfiltered truth.

The executive who can call a peer and ask “how did you actually handle this” has an advantage that no amount of research can replicate.

Why peer learning outperforms traditional sources

Reports and frameworks have their place. But they come with limitations that peer learning doesn’t.

Timeliness

By the time research is conducted, analyzed, written, and published, the situation has often changed. Peer conversations happen in real time. Someone facing a tariff change today can learn from someone who navigated it last month.

Context

Published insights are necessarily generalized. They have to apply broadly to justify their existence. Peer conversations can be specific. You can ask follow-up questions. You can explore the nuances that matter for your situation.

Honesty

Public-facing content tends toward success stories. Nobody publishes case studies about their failures. But failures often teach more than successes. In trusted peer relationships, people share what went wrong—and those lessons are invaluable.

Relevance

Not every insight applies to every organization. Peer networks let you find people in similar contexts: same industry, same scale, same challenges. Their experience translates more directly to your situation.

The information advantage has disappeared

Twenty years ago, access to information was a competitive advantage. The leaders who knew more could do more.

That era is over.

Everyone has access to the same reports. The same news. The same analyst perspectives. The same technology assessments. Information abundance has replaced information scarcity.

The new advantage isn’t having more information. It’s processing information faster. Learning faster. Adapting faster.

And the fastest learning happens through peer networks.

When you’re connected to practitioners who are testing ideas in real operations, you learn from their experiments without running them yourself. You see results before committing resources. You avoid mistakes others have already made.

This learning velocity compounds over time. Leaders who learn faster make better decisions. Better decisions create better outcomes. Better outcomes create more learning opportunities.

Building the network that matters

Effective peer learning doesn’t happen by accident. It requires intentional investment.

Engage actively, not passively

Showing up isn’t enough. The value comes from participation. Asking questions. Sharing experiences. Challenging ideas. The more you contribute, the more you receive.

Seek diverse perspectives

Networks limited to people exactly like you create echo chambers. The most valuable insights often come from practitioners in different industries, different regions, different functional backgrounds who face similar challenges from different angles.

Build trust through reciprocity

People share openly with those who share openly with them. If you only take from your network without contributing, relationships stay superficial. Genuine exchange requires genuine giving.

Prioritize quality over quantity

A small network of trusted peers who will tell you the truth beats a large network of acquaintances who share only polished stories. Depth matters more than breadth.

The community that accelerates learning

This is exactly what we’re building at Chain.NET.

An industry-led community where supply chain, procurement, and logistics leaders gather every week—online and offline—to share what’s actually working. To challenge assumptions. To compare notes. To learn faster, together.

Through executive forums, roundtables, masterclasses, open AMAs, and benchmark surveys, members don’t just consume content. They participate in conversations that sharpen their thinking and accelerate their learning.

The pattern we see consistently: the leaders who engage most actively are the ones who adapt fastest to changing conditions. They’re not smarter. They’re better connected.

As 2026 unfolds, the advantage won’t come from having more information. Everyone has that.

It will come from learning faster, together, with people who understand the reality of the job.

Where do you learn best? Are you plugged into peer networks that accelerate your development? What’s the most valuable insight you’ve gained from a fellow practitioner?

Share your experience in the comments—and if you’re ready to engage with a community built for peer learning, join us at Chain.NET.

The best supply chain leaders know they can’t figure it out alone.

Supply chain salaries are rising. The market is finally rewarding scarcity.

But this is not when supply chain excellence becomes automatic.

This is when it becomes expensive.

You can feel it already. The CEO wants resilience. The board wants visibility. The numbers look stable enough to relax. And the market is rewarding companies with strong supply chain leadership.

That’s exactly why 2026 is dangerous for CSCOs.

Misallocation becomes easy. When confidence rises, companies spend faster. They greenlight too many resilience initiatives. They fund every AI tool vendor pitches. They approve transformations that should demand proof. They mistake activity for supply chain performance because the mood improves.

Most CSCOs will enter 2026 thinking the job is to optimize harder.

The job is not to optimize harder. The job is to build a supply chain operating system where the organization can reallocate resources without chaos.

Read more