At a recent World Commerce & Contracting conference, a familiar theme surfaced again and again: collaboration, influence, and procurement’s enduring pursuit of a meaningful seat at the table.
It’s a compelling narrative (albeit garnering apathy from those who have heard it before), that suggests a profession on the cusp of transformation.
And yet, the evening prior, in conversation with Michael Alp from NZGP, a more grounded reality emerged. His role, as he described it, is not simply to evolve procurement, but to continually demonstrate its relevance to ‘the high table’.
That juxtaposition is worth sitting with. Because it reveals a tension at the heart of the profession:
Procurement is being asked to collaborate more deeply at the very moment it is still proving why it should be there at all.
Perception Before Participation
During the conference, I posed a question that has stayed with me:
If internal stakeholders cannot perceive procurement’s value, why would they actively seek to collaborate with it?
Collaboration is not granted by mandate. It is earned through consistent, visible contribution to outcomes that matter.
Where procurement is perceived as process-heavy, compliance-oriented, or episodic in its engagement, collaboration becomes performative rather than embedded. It is invited late, engaged cautiously, and often bypassed entirely when urgency rises.
This is not a criticism of individuals, specialists or managers. It is a reflection of how the function has historically been designed and positioned.
Reframing procurement as “commercial integration” is an interesting signal of intent.
But titles alone do not shift perception. Capability, behaviour, and proximity to decision-making do.
From Accidental Profession to Deliberate Discipline
Procurement has, for a long time, been characterised by non-linear entry paths. Many capable practitioners have “fallen into” the profession and built expertise through experience rather than structured development.
There is value in that diversity.
However as expectations of the function expand, this informality becomes a constraint.
If procurement is to operate as a strategic commercial function, it must begin to resemble one in how it defines:
Entry standards
Core capabilities
Development pathways
Measures of success
Professions that influence executive decision-making are rarely accidental. They are deliberate in their construction and consistent in their expectations.
The Erosion of Process as Differentiator
A significant portion of traditional procurement activity has been grounded in process: sourcing methodologies, compliance frameworks, template management, and transactional oversight.
This layer is now being systematically eroded.
Automation, AI-enabled tools, embedded procurement capability within business units, and increasingly sophisticated supplier ecosystems are redistributing this work. What was once specialised is becoming standardised.
At the same time, data has become more accessible across organisations. The challenge is no longer access, but interpretation and application.
This shift has two implications:
Process excellence alone is no longer a differentiator
Analytical capability is no longer confined to specialist roles
As data literacy and project delivery capability diffuse across organisations and roles, are these the natural ‘replacer skills’ for historic, process driven skillsets?
The Emergence of a hybrid commercial capability
With the above in mind, a new capability profile is beginning to take shape.
Not a rebranded procurement professional, but a genuinely hybrid operator. One who blends:
Commercial acumen
Contractualexpertise
Data interpretation
Delivery awareness
Stakeholder influence
This is less about adding adjacent skills and more about integrating them into a coherent way of operating.
These individuals are not defined by their ownership of a process, but by their ability to navigate complexity and shape outcomes across organisational interfaces. They are as comfortable interrogating a dataset as they are facilitating a negotiation or reframing a commercial model.
Importantly, they are not confined to procurement teams. They are increasingly being sought across functions, often under the broader banner of “commercial leadership.”
Organisational Design as the Primary Constraint
It’s tempting to frame this evolution as a capability gap within procurement. In reality, it’s just as much an organisational design challenge.
Functions behave based on how they are positioned, measured, and incentivised.
Where procurement is:
Structurally removed from strategic decision-making
Measured on compliance and process adherence
Engaged late in delivery cycles
…it will continue to operate as a control function, regardless of the capability within it.
If the expectation is for procurement to contribute strategically, then organisational structures must enable:
Earlier and more consistent involvement
Alignment to commercial and delivery outcomes
Integration with data and project delivery functions
Without this change, even the most capable practitioners will find themselves constrained by the system they operate within.
Ironically or otherwise, these organisational deficiencies speak to the public service’s shortcomings in commercial awareness & control, mirroring a perception that some of us in this country have of our central government’s capability to manage things like New Zealand’s key infrastructure.
A Moment of External Pressure
The conference also referenced a recent Canadian government audit, which found that approximately 56% of contracts reviewed were not using the correct contract templates/format.
Moments like this often act as catalysts.
They expose systemic weaknesses in a way that internal dialogue sometimes cannot. They create urgency. They justify intervention.
The question for New Zealand is whether meaningful change requires a similar external trigger, or whether the system can evolve more proactively.
New Zealand’s Opportunity
This is where the work of Michael Alp becomes particularly relevant.
There is a quiet but important shift underway. Initiatives such as Procure Connect are evolving in scope, incorporating lessons learned and extending into more complex service areas. The inclusion of insurance services, following earlier iterations in legal services, signals a willingness to adapt rather than retreat.
This is not disruption for its own sake. It is targeted, iterative change within a system that has historically been cautious.
What stands out is not just the tooling, but the posture behind it. A recognition that maintaining relevance requires both defending the value of procurement today and shaping what it becomes tomorrow.
In that sense, could NZGP’s function be less about preserving a function and more about guiding its transition?
So, What Comes Next?
Procurement, as it has traditionally been understood, is under pressure. Elements of it will continue to diminish in visibility and value as they are automated or absorbed elsewhere.
But the underlying need it serves is not disappearing. If anything, it is becoming more critical.
Organisations still require capability that can:
Translate complexity into clear commercial decisions
Align multiple stakeholders toward shared outcomes
Structure agreements that are resilient and fit for purpose
Identify risk and opportunity across organisational boundaries
The question is not whether this capability is needed. It is where it sits, how it is developed, and what it is called.
A Transition, Not an Extinction
Framing this as the “death of procurement” is, perhaps too simplistic.
What we are seeing is a transition.
From a function defined by process…to a capability defined by impact.
From a profession people fall into…to one that must be intentionally built.
From a support role…to an integrated commercial discipline.
Whether that transition is gradual or accelerated by external events remains to be seen.
What is clear is that the organisations who move first, in how they design, develop, and deploy this capability, will not just preserve relevance.
They will define it.
