In the July 2008 Procurement Insights post Procurement considerations when dealing with a merger? (A PI Q&A), A reader asked the following question:
Aside from the basics of spend analysis and eliminating redundancy, I’m curious to hear of others’ experiences in dealing with mergers/acquisitions and how the cultural elements were addressed in terms of promoting the use of preferred vendors and the adoption of expense management policy.
What are some best practices to promote optimal adoption of the governing policies and procedures in the absence of spend management technology?
Paul Nilsen, Purchasing Manager – Willis North America, New York, NY**
**(NOTE: Yes, I do keep track of all the professionals who have interacted with Procurement Insights since the blog was launched in May 2007, as it provides a glimpse into how our industry has progressed over these many years.)
FROM CANDY . . . (2008)
My Response
In Part 4 of my Changing Face of Procurement Conference Series, titled “Winning Strategies for Vendor Engagement,” I briefly discuss an M&A case reference involving organizations within the confectionery or candy industry. I also reviewed the same case in the critically acclaimed series, Yes Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software (Part 2) – see the link in the Web Resources Section.
Under the heading “Candy and supply base synchronization,” I wrote the following:
How important is effective internal collaboration? Just ask a candy company in the U.S. Midwest. As the manufacturer of many leading brands, this organization experienced significant growth in a very short period through a series of acquisitions. Unfortunately, an extemporal supply base was a byproduct of the transactions, leaving the acquiring company with a highly suspicious, deeply segmented group of suppliers.
As expressed by a senior procurement manager for the parent organization, the biggest challenge was convincing the former suppliers of the acquired companies that joining the larger pool would expose them to opportunities for increased sales.
The suppliers weren’t buying the “increased opportunity” mantra, so the transition process was incredibly challenging.
What is worth noting is that organizational leadership did not establish any degree of collaboration between the different purchasing organizations from the outset. This “oversight” only served to fuel rather than douse the internal division fires, resulting in both a practical and operational lack of cohesiveness and coordination. The result was a “territorial” struggle that “manifested” itself in a divided supply base. This disconnect and division hardly created an environment conducive to successful consolidation. (Note: my August 3rd, 2007 post titled Procurement’s expanding role and the executive of the future reviewed the results of a panel discussion hosted by CPO Agenda. The 2007 article is a worthwhile read as it demonstrates the potential repercussions of excluding supply chain personnel in the early planning stages of an organization’s M&A strategy.)
The candy company case, along with numerous other examples of failed initiatives, demonstrates that effective channels of communication and collaboration between diverse stakeholders, both within and external to an organization, significantly influence the likelihood of achieving a collective “best result” outcome.
If the organization you are referring to is “found wanting” in this critical area, then no amount of data or spend management technology will make a difference. If it did, then 85% of all e-procurement and supply chain initiatives would not fail.
I have also included corresponding links to related articles on the current disconnect between purchasing and finance, as well as the myth of vendor rationalization.
Web Resources:
https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/yes-virginia-there-is-more-to-e-procurement-than-software-part-2/
https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/bridging-the-communications-gap-between-finance-and-purchasing/
https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/dangerous-supply-chain-myths-part-2-revisited/
. . . TO KIDNEYS (2024)
The spinoff of Baxter International Inc.’s Kidney Care segment into Vantive, finalized in February 2025 through a $3.8 billion acquisition by the Carlyle Group, introduces unique challenges to the procurement and supply chain practices of both Baxter and the newly formed Vantive.
Such a corporate restructuring, particularly in the medtech sector with its complex global supply chains, significantly impacts procurement and supply chain operations. Drawing on the context of the spinoff, the Gartner Technology Adoption Roadmap, and the challenges of the polycrisis era, the following is a detailed analysis of the unique challenges likely to be faced by Baxter and Vantive’s procurement and supply chain practices.
A move toward a fully integrated procurement architecture—such as the one depicted above—presents both transformational opportunities and significant operational challenges. Below are the unique challenges typically encountered by companies undertaking this transition, particularly across procurement and supply chain functions:
1. Master Data Fragmentation
Challenge:
Multiple legacy systems (ERP, AP, sourcing, and vendor master) result in siloed and inconsistent data across suppliers, SKUs, categories, and contracts.
Impact on Procurement/Supply Chain:
- Poor spend visibility
- Duplication of supplier records
- Missed volume discounts or bundled sourcing
2. Integration Complexity
Challenge:
Integrating tools like CLM, S2P, EDI, analytics, and sustainability modules across a fragmented tech stack is non-trivial—especially with multi-ERP environments or industry-specific tools (e.g., SCADA in energy or Epic in healthcare).
Impact:
- Higher IT overhead
- Delayed automation ROI
- Procurement becomes reactive vs. strategic
3. User Adoption and Change Fatigue
Challenge:
Procurement, AP, and supply chain staff must shift from manual/Excel-based workflows to digital platforms.
Impact:
- Resistance from business units and suppliers
- Underutilized features
- Training costs and productivity lags during rollout
4. Workflow Disruption and Governance Gaps
Challenge:
Old processes may not map neatly to new tools—especially when it comes to approvals, exceptions, risk checks, and ESG compliance.
Impact:
- Policy non-compliance
- Audit issues
- Shadow procurement or maverick spend
5. Vendor Management Complexity
Challenge:
Centralizing supplier onboarding, performance, compliance, and diversity tracking requires strong taxonomy alignment and stakeholder accountability.
Impact:
- Vendor confusion on processes and expectations
- Redundant or missed risk mitigation
- Delays in onboarding or contracting
6. ROI Realization Delay
Challenge:
Benefits like FTE reduction, better pricing, or working capital gains can take 12–24 months to materialize without proper sequencing or KPIs.
Impact:
- Executive sponsor disappointment
- Difficulty in securing future tech budgets
- Risk of “shelfware” if systems are not optimized
7. Cross-Functional Misalignment
Challenge:
Procurement, IT, Finance, Legal, Compliance, and Business Units often have misaligned goals and conflicting timelines.
Impact:
- Prioritization battles
- Gaps in the transformation roadmap
- Duplication of effort (e.g., separate ESG or risk tools)
8. AI and Automation Gaps
Challenge:
If GenAI, workflow bots, or decision engines aren’t embedded in the design, automation and predictive sourcing benefits are lost.
Impact:
- Continued manual interventions
- Lost competitive edge
- Poor data leverage in supply chain planning
FROM CANDY (2008) TO KIDNEYS (2024) AND BEYOND
The spinoff of Baxter International Inc.’s Kidney Care segment into Vantive, finalized in February 2025, and the 2008 merger of the candy company, as discussed in the Procurement Insights article, both involve significant corporate restructuring that impacts procurement and supply chain practices. Both cases highlight challenges in disentangling shared systems, managing supplier relationships, and optimizing costs, but they differ in scale, industry context, and the technological and strategic approaches available in their respective eras. The Hansen Fit Score framework, with its Metaprise, Agent-based, and Strand Commonality models, offers a modern lens for addressing these challenges in the Baxter-Vantive case, reflecting significant advancements in procurement and supply chain management practices from 2008 to 2025. Below is a detailed analysis of the similarities and differences in their impacts on procurement and supply chains, as well as how these cases demonstrate progress in managing these functions over the intervening years.
Similarities in Procurement and Supply Chain Impacts
- Disentanglement of Shared Systems and Processes:
- Baxter-Vantive Spinoff: The spinoff requires separating Baxter’s shared procurement and supply chain infrastructure (e.g., SAP-based ERP systems, supplier networks, logistics) to create independent operations for Vantive’s kidney care products and Baxter’s remaining portfolio (e.g., drug delivery, surgical products). This involves reconfiguring procurement platforms, splitting supplier contracts, and reallocating inventory, which risks disruptions to data integrity and logistics continuity.
- Candy Company Merger: The 2008 candy company merger necessitated separating intertwined supply chain and procurement systems. As noted in the Procurement Insights article, this involved addressing fragmented processes, such as sourcing for cocoa versus beverage ingredients, and reallocating shared logistics networks, which posed risks of operational inefficiencies.
- Common Challenge: Both cases face the challenge of disentangling shared systems, requiring new procurement platforms and logistics setups. The article highlights the need to “review and possibly renegotiate contracts” and “establish new supplier relationships” during the candy company merger, similar to Vantive’s need to build independent systems and Baxter’s need to optimize its remaining operations.
- Supplier Relationship Management and Continuity:
- Baxter-Vantive: Vantive must establish or inherit supplier relationships for dialysis components (e.g., membranes, tubing), while Baxter ensures continuity for its non-kidney care products. Suppliers may prioritize Baxter’s larger scale, reducing Vantive’s bargaining power, and both entities must address ESG compliance in a polycrisis era.
- Candy Company: The merger necessitated that each entity manage distinct supplier bases, presenting challenges in maintaining existing supplier relationships and negotiating new terms. The article emphasizes the importance of “streamlining vendor relationships” to avoid disruptions, a concern echoed in the Baxter-Vantive case.
- Common Challenge: Both restructurings risk supplier loss or reduced leverage due to changes in scale and focus, necessitating robust supplier onboarding and relationship management to ensure supply continuity.
- Cost Pressures and Financial Realignment:
- Baxter-Vantive: Baxter’s $3.8 billion sale to Carlyle reduces its $13.8 billion debt, but both entities face cost pressures. Vantive must establish cost-effective procurement without Baxter’s scale, while Baxter optimizes its remaining portfolio. Transition costs (e.g., new systems, logistics) add financial strain.
- Candy Company: The demerger aimed to unlock value by creating focused entities, but each faced costs in establishing independent procurement and supply chains. The article notes the need to “identify cost-saving opportunities” through contract rationalization, a priority also seen in Baxter’s debt reduction and Vantive’s need for cost efficiency.
- Common Challenge: Both cases involve financial pressures to achieve cost synergies, requiring strategic sourcing and contract negotiations to maintain profitability amidst transition costs.
- Operational Continuity and Risk Mitigation:
- Baxter-Vantive: Both entities must ensure continuity in critical operations—Vantive for dialysis patient care and Baxter for its diversified portfolio—while mitigating risks like supply chain disruptions in a polycrisis era (e.g., geopolitical tensions, semiconductor shortages).
- Candy Company: The demerger necessitated maintaining operational continuity for confectionery and beverage production, with the risk of supply chain disruptions arising from fragmented processes. The article stresses the importance of “risk assessment” to ensure stable operations.
- Common Challenge: Both restructurings prioritize operational continuity, requiring robust risk management to avoid disruptions in supply chains critical to their respective markets.
Differences in Procurement and Supply Chain Impacts
- Industry and Product Complexity:
- Baxter-Vantive: The medtech industry involves highly regulated, patient-critical products (e.g., dialysis equipment, digital health solutions like Sharesource). Vantive’s supply chain must ensure compliance with stringent regulations (e.g., FDA, HIPAA) and deliver life-saving products reliably, which increases complexity. Baxter’s remaining portfolio, focused on drug delivery and surgical products, requires a diversified supply chain with different regulatory and sourcing needs.
- Candy Company: The food and beverage industry deals with less regulated products (e.g., chocolate, soft drinks), but faces challenges in sourcing raw materials like cocoa and sugar, which are subject to commodity price volatility. The article highlights the need to manage “diverse supply chains” for confectionery versus beverages, which is less complex than medtech’s regulatory demands.
- Impact: Baxter-Vantive’s procurement and supply chain practices face greater regulatory scrutiny and patient safety concerns, requiring advanced tools (e.g., Prewave for ESG risk) compared to the candy company’s focus on commodity sourcing and cost management.
- Scale and Financial Context:
- Baxter-Vantive: The $3.8 billion sale to Carlyle reflects a strategic divestiture to reduce Baxter’s debt and focus on higher-margin businesses. Vantive, as a smaller entity, must build a lean supply chain for a $15 billion kidney care market, facing challenges in negotiating favorable terms without Baxter’s scale.
- Candy Company: The demerger created two entities of relatively comparable size, with the candy company leveraging established market positions. The article notes the goal of “unlocking value” through focused operations, with less emphasis on debt reduction.
- Impact: Baxter-Vantive’s procurement faces greater financial pressure due to debt reduction goals and Vantive’s smaller scale, requiring more sophisticated cost optimization tools compared to the candy company’s balanced demerger.
- Technological and Digital Environment:
- Baxter-Vantive: In 2025, procurement and supply chain practices will leverage advanced technologies like AI, cloud infrastructure, and orchestration platforms, as per the Gartner roadmap. Vantive’s digital health focus (e.g., Sharesource) requires a supply chain for high-tech components, increasing complexity.
- Candy Company: In 2008, procurement relied on less advanced systems, with limited adoption of e-procurement and analytics. The article highlights manual processes and fragmented systems, with e-procurement initiatives failing to deliver expected results in 85% of cases.
- Impact: Baxter-Vantive benefits from modern ProcureTech, enabling faster system integration and analytics-driven decisions, while the candy company faced challenges with manual, less integrated systems.
- Polycrisis Era Context:
- Baxter-Vantive: The polycrisis era (2025) presents interconnected challenges, including geopolitical disruptions, semiconductor shortages, and ESG pressures, which require resilient supply chains and sustainability-focused procurement (e.g., Greenstone for emissions tracking).
- Candy Company: In 2008, the global financial crisis was a primary concern, with less focus on ESG or digital transformation. The article emphasizes cost savings and process streamlining, reflecting a simpler risk landscape.
- Impact: Baxter-Vantive faces more complex external pressures, necessitating advanced risk management and ESG compliance, unlike the candy company’s focus on financial recovery.
Demonstration of Progress in Procurement and Supply Chain Practices (2008–2025)
The Baxter-Vantive spinoff and the candy company merger highlight significant advancements in procurement and supply chain management from 2008 to 2025, driven by technological innovation, strategic focus, and the Hansen Fit Score framework:
- Technological Advancements:
- 2008 (Candy Company): The Procurement Insights article notes that 85% of e-procurement initiatives failed to deliver results, reflecting reliance on manual processes, fragmented systems, and basic ERP solutions. Procurement was often seen as a back-office function, with limited analytics and visibility. The article emphasizes the need to “bridge the communications gap” between finance and purchasing, indicating siloed operations.
- 2025 (Baxter-Vantive): Procurement leverages cloud-based platforms, AI-driven analytics, and orchestration tools, in line with the Gartner roadmap. The Hansen Fit Score enables data-driven provider selection, reducing implementation risks by 30–50% (via the Metaprise model). ABM and Strand Commonality models optimize data pipelines and align procurement with ESG goals, reflecting a shift toward strategic, digitally enabled operations.
- Progress: The transition from manual, siloed systems to integrated, AI-driven platforms demonstrates a leap in procurement maturity, enabling faster system disentanglement and real-time visibility for Baxter-Vantive compared to the candy company’s manual processes.
- Strategic Role of Procurement:
- 2008: The article describes procurement as evolving from “purchasing” (transactional) to a broader role encompassing supply chain elements (e.g., logistics, sourcing). However, procurement was still undervalued, with limited executive focus on its strategic potential.
- 2025: Procurement is a strategic partner, contributing 30% or more of merger synergies, as noted in McKinsey’s 2023 analysis. The Hansen Fit Score positions procurement to drive cost synergies, mitigate risk, and ensure ESG compliance, aligning with business objectives. For Baxter-Vantive, procurement optimizes costs and supports patient-centric care (Vantive) as well as debt reduction (Baxter).
- Progress: Procurement’s role has evolved from tactical to strategic, with tools like the Fit Score ensuring alignment with corporate goals —a significant advancement from the era of the candy company.
- Risk Management and ESG Focus:
- 2008: The article focuses on financial risks (e.g., global financial crisis), with limited mention of sustainability or geopolitical concerns. Risk management relied on manual assessments and basic supplier evaluations.
- 2025: The polycrisis era demands advanced risk management for geopolitical disruptions, supply chain volatility, and ESG compliance. The Hansen Fit Score’s ABM models supply chain risks, while Strand Commonality integrates ESG metrics (e.g., Prewave, Greenstone), ensuring Baxter-Vantive addresses sustainability and patient safety.
- Progress: The adoption of predictive analytics and ESG-focused tools reflects a sophisticated approach to risk management, far beyond the candy company’s basic assessments.
- Speed and Efficiency:
- 2008: The candy company merger faced challenges due to slow, manual processes, as e-procurement systems were still immature. The article notes the need for “streamlined processes” but lacks tools to achieve this efficiently.
- 2025: The Metaprise model accelerates implementations by 30–50%, enabling rapid system setup for Vantive and Baxter. Cloud-based solutions and real-time analytics (e.g., Emerge for freight visibility) ensure faster integration and cost savings, as emphasized in BCG’s PMI framework.
- Progress: The speed of integration has improved dramatically, with modern ProcureTech reducing transition times and enhancing efficiency compared to the era of the candy company.
- Supplier and Stakeholder Collaboration:
- 2008: The article highlights fragmented supplier relationships and communication gaps, with limited tools for collaboration. Procurement was reactive, focusing on cost and delivery.
- 2025: The Metaprise model fosters multi-stakeholder collaboration, streamlining supplier onboarding and contract management. The Fit Score evaluates suppliers for strategic fit, enhancing partnerships for Baxter-Vantive.
- Progress: Collaborative platforms and data-driven supplier management have transformed procurement into a proactive, partnership-oriented function.
Conclusion
The Baxter-Vantive spinoff and the candy company merger share challenges in disentangling systems, managing suppliers, controlling costs, and ensuring continuity; however, they differ in terms of industry complexity, scale, and technological context. Baxter-Vantive faces greater regulatory and ESG demands, while the candy company dealt with simpler commodity sourcing. From 2008 to 2025, procurement and supply chain practices have evolved from manual, siloed operations to strategic, digitally enabled functions, leveraging AI, cloud platforms, and the Hansen Fit Score framework. This framework enhances Baxter-Vantive’s ability to navigate the polycrisis era, demonstrating significant advancements in speed, analytics, risk management, and collaboration compared to the challenges the candy company faced in 2008.
THE HANSEN FIT SCORE
The Hansen Fit Score framework significantly enhances Baxter-Vantive’s ability to manage spinoff challenges compared to the candy company’s 2008 capabilities:
- Fit Score: Selects optimal ProcureTech solutions (e.g., for Vantive’s orchestration and for Baxter’s analytics), reducing implementation risks and ensuring alignment with medtech needs.
- Metaprise Model: Accelerates system disentanglement and supplier onboarding, addressing the candy company’s slow, manual processes.
- Agent-Based Modeling: Optimizes data pipelines and risk management, mitigating disruptions absent in the polycrisis era of 2008.
- Strand Commonality Models: Aligns procurement with ESG and patient-centric goals, a priority not emphasized in the candy company’s demerger.
30
Procurement Insights
From Candy To Kidneys: The Impact of Spinoffs And M&As On Procurement And Supply Chain
Posted on July 2, 2025
0
In the July 2008 Procurement Insights post Procurement considerations when dealing with a merger? (A PI Q&A), A reader asked the following question:
Aside from the basics of spend analysis and eliminating redundancy, I’m curious to hear of others’ experiences in dealing with mergers/acquisitions and how the cultural elements were addressed in terms of promoting the use of preferred vendors and the adoption of expense management policy.
What are some best practices to promote optimal adoption of the governing policies and procedures in the absence of spend management technology?
Paul Nilsen, Purchasing Manager – Willis North America, New York, NY**
**(NOTE: Yes, I do keep track of all the professionals who have interacted with Procurement Insights since the blog was launched in May 2007, as it provides a glimpse into how our industry has progressed over these many years.)
FROM CANDY . . . (2008)
My Response
In Part 4 of my Changing Face of Procurement Conference Series, titled “Winning Strategies for Vendor Engagement,” I briefly discuss an M&A case reference involving organizations within the confectionery or candy industry. I also reviewed the same case in the critically acclaimed series, Yes Virginia! There is more to e-procurement than software (Part 2) – see the link in the Web Resources Section.
Under the heading “Candy and supply base synchronization,” I wrote the following:
How important is effective internal collaboration? Just ask a candy company in the U.S. Midwest. As the manufacturer of many leading brands, this organization experienced significant growth in a very short period through a series of acquisitions. Unfortunately, an extemporal supply base was a byproduct of the transactions, leaving the acquiring company with a highly suspicious, deeply segmented group of suppliers.
As expressed by a senior procurement manager for the parent organization, the biggest challenge was convincing the former suppliers of the acquired companies that joining the larger pool would expose them to opportunities for increased sales.
The suppliers weren’t buying the “increased opportunity” mantra, so the transition process was incredibly challenging.
What is worth noting is that organizational leadership did not establish any degree of collaboration between the different purchasing organizations from the outset. This “oversight” only served to fuel rather than douse the internal division fires, resulting in both a practical and operational lack of cohesiveness and coordination. The result was a “territorial” struggle that “manifested” itself in a divided supply base. This disconnect and division hardly created an environment conducive to successful consolidation. (Note: my August 3rd, 2007 post titled Procurement’s expanding role and the executive of the future reviewed the results of a panel discussion hosted by CPO Agenda. The 2007 article is a worthwhile read as it demonstrates the potential repercussions of excluding supply chain personnel in the early planning stages of an organization’s M&A strategy.)
The candy company case, along with numerous other examples of failed initiatives, demonstrates that effective channels of communication and collaboration between diverse stakeholders, both within and external to an organization, significantly influence the likelihood of achieving a collective “best result” outcome.
If the organization you are referring to is “found wanting” in this critical area, then no amount of data or spend management technology will make a difference. If it did, then 85% of all e-procurement and supply chain initiatives would not fail.
I have also included corresponding links to related articles on the current disconnect between purchasing and finance, as well as the myth of vendor rationalization.
Web Resources:
https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2007/09/20/yes-virginia-there-is-more-to-e-procurement-than-software-part-2/
https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/bridging-the-communications-gap-between-finance-and-purchasing/
https://procureinsights.wordpress.com/2008/06/19/dangerous-supply-chain-myths-part-2-revisited/
. . . TO KIDNEYS (2024)
The spinoff of Baxter International Inc.’s Kidney Care segment into Vantive, finalized in February 2025 through a $3.8 billion acquisition by the Carlyle Group, introduces unique challenges to the procurement and supply chain practices of both Baxter and the newly formed Vantive.
Such a corporate restructuring, particularly in the medtech sector with its complex global supply chains, significantly impacts procurement and supply chain operations. Drawing on the context of the spinoff, the Gartner Technology Adoption Roadmap, and the challenges of the polycrisis era, the following is a detailed analysis of the unique challenges likely to be faced by Baxter and Vantive’s procurement and supply chain practices.
A move toward a fully integrated procurement architecture—such as the one depicted above—presents both transformational opportunities and significant operational challenges. Below are the unique challenges typically encountered by companies undertaking this transition, particularly across procurement and supply chain functions:
1. Master Data Fragmentation
Challenge:
Multiple legacy systems (ERP, AP, sourcing, and vendor master) result in siloed and inconsistent data across suppliers, SKUs, categories, and contracts.
Impact on Procurement/Supply Chain:
2. Integration Complexity
Challenge:
Integrating tools like CLM, S2P, EDI, analytics, and sustainability modules across a fragmented tech stack is non-trivial—especially with multi-ERP environments or industry-specific tools (e.g., SCADA in energy or Epic in healthcare).
Impact:
3. User Adoption and Change Fatigue
Challenge:
Procurement, AP, and supply chain staff must shift from manual/Excel-based workflows to digital platforms.
Impact:
4. Workflow Disruption and Governance Gaps
Challenge:
Old processes may not map neatly to new tools—especially when it comes to approvals, exceptions, risk checks, and ESG compliance.
Impact:
5. Vendor Management Complexity
Challenge:
Centralizing supplier onboarding, performance, compliance, and diversity tracking requires strong taxonomy alignment and stakeholder accountability.
Impact:
6. ROI Realization Delay
Challenge:
Benefits like FTE reduction, better pricing, or working capital gains can take 12–24 months to materialize without proper sequencing or KPIs.
Impact:
7. Cross-Functional Misalignment
Challenge:
Procurement, IT, Finance, Legal, Compliance, and Business Units often have misaligned goals and conflicting timelines.
Impact:
8. AI and Automation Gaps
Challenge:
If GenAI, workflow bots, or decision engines aren’t embedded in the design, automation and predictive sourcing benefits are lost.
Impact:
FROM CANDY (2008) TO KIDNEYS (2024) AND BEYOND
The spinoff of Baxter International Inc.’s Kidney Care segment into Vantive, finalized in February 2025, and the 2008 merger of the candy company, as discussed in the Procurement Insights article, both involve significant corporate restructuring that impacts procurement and supply chain practices. Both cases highlight challenges in disentangling shared systems, managing supplier relationships, and optimizing costs, but they differ in scale, industry context, and the technological and strategic approaches available in their respective eras. The Hansen Fit Score framework, with its Metaprise, Agent-based, and Strand Commonality models, offers a modern lens for addressing these challenges in the Baxter-Vantive case, reflecting significant advancements in procurement and supply chain management practices from 2008 to 2025. Below is a detailed analysis of the similarities and differences in their impacts on procurement and supply chains, as well as how these cases demonstrate progress in managing these functions over the intervening years.
Similarities in Procurement and Supply Chain Impacts
Differences in Procurement and Supply Chain Impacts
Demonstration of Progress in Procurement and Supply Chain Practices (2008–2025)
The Baxter-Vantive spinoff and the candy company merger highlight significant advancements in procurement and supply chain management from 2008 to 2025, driven by technological innovation, strategic focus, and the Hansen Fit Score framework:
Conclusion
The Baxter-Vantive spinoff and the candy company merger share challenges in disentangling systems, managing suppliers, controlling costs, and ensuring continuity; however, they differ in terms of industry complexity, scale, and technological context. Baxter-Vantive faces greater regulatory and ESG demands, while the candy company dealt with simpler commodity sourcing. From 2008 to 2025, procurement and supply chain practices have evolved from manual, siloed operations to strategic, digitally enabled functions, leveraging AI, cloud platforms, and the Hansen Fit Score framework. This framework enhances Baxter-Vantive’s ability to navigate the polycrisis era, demonstrating significant advancements in speed, analytics, risk management, and collaboration compared to the challenges the candy company faced in 2008.
THE HANSEN FIT SCORE
The Hansen Fit Score framework significantly enhances Baxter-Vantive’s ability to manage spinoff challenges compared to the candy company’s 2008 capabilities:
30
Share this:
Related