The evolution of the procurement professional’s responsibilities 1980 to 2050.

Today’s post is inspired by a LinkedIn post from Miroslav Pitlantic.

If we are going to prognosticate about future technology, we might as well also forecast the evolution of the procurement professional. Based on the RAM 2025 Model 1, Level 1 assessment, what does that future look like? Today’s Procurement Insights post serves as a starting point for addressing this question. Keep in mind that I have only used one of the six models and the first of the five levels of assessment.

MODEL 1, LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT

Between 1980 and 2025, the five responsibilities you listed—managing suppliers, chasing savings, following processes, fixing problems, and running tenders—have each gone through very distinct shifts in scope, tools, accountability, and strategic importance.
Here’s a chronological breakdown:

---

1. Managing Suppliers

1980s–1990s

• Transactional: Supplier management primarily involved maintaining contact lists, processing purchase orders, and ensuring that deliveries met the specifications.
• The relationship focus was reactive—interactions often only occurred when something went wrong.
• Supplier performance data was anecdotal; formal scorecards were rare.

2000s–2010s

• Structured SRM (Supplier Relationship Management) emerges, involving the segmentation of strategic and non-strategic suppliers.
• Formal scorecards, KPIs, and quarterly business reviews become common.
• Supplier consolidation to leverage volume discounts.
• Risk management begins to emerge—especially after the 2008 recession.

2020s

• Proactive, data-driven supplier orchestration: Use of AI, predictive analytics, and supplier intelligence platforms (Tealbook, Everstream, Prewave).
• ESG, diversity, and resilience are core supplier criteria.
• Supplier collaboration is now a competitive advantage (joint innovation, shared R&D).

---

2. Chasing Savings

1980s–1990s

• Main procurement KPI: lowest price.
• Heavy reliance on manual negotiations and face-to-face bidding.
• Savings measurement often top-down and sometimes imprecise—rarely tied to total cost of ownership (TCO).

2000s–2010s

• Shift to cost avoidance and TCO models: factoring logistics, maintenance, and disposal.
• Introduction of e-auctions, category management, and spend analytics tools.
• Savings reporting becomes more formalized—sometimes overemphasized due to pressure from the C-suite.

2020s

• “Savings chasing” declines as a primary driver, now balanced against sustainability, supplier resilience, and speed to market.
• Predictive procurement models prioritize risk avoidance and lifecycle value over one-off discounts.
• AI-powered spend analytics enables real-time visibility, but the metric is increasingly one of several strategic levers.

---

3. Following Processes

1980s–1990s

• Processes were largely paper-based: purchase requisitions, RFQs, and approvals on carbon copy forms.
• Compliance was internal—often varying widely by department.
• Procurement is seen as an administrative function.

2000s–2010s

• ERP integration (SAP, Oracle) standardizes workflows.
• ISO standards influence procurement documentation and audit readiness.
• E-procurement tools enforce policy adherence—though sometimes at the cost of agility.

2020s

• Processes become dynamic workflows embedded in cloud platforms, often tailored to specific roles or categories.
• Governance is digital-first—supported by AI that can flag non-compliance in real time.
• Shift from “follow the process” to “follow the outcome” thinking, with processes adapting to risk and opportunity signals.

---

4. Fixing Problems

1980s–1990s

• Procurement often acted as a firefighter—jumping in only when delivery failures, price hikes, or quality issues occurred.
• Root cause analysis was rare; fixes were tactical and short-term.

2000s–2010s

• Introduction of supplier quality management systems and Six Sigma/Lean principles.
• Increased focus on prevention via SLAs and better forecasting.
• Still reactive in many organizations—issues are often escalated late.

2020s

• Problem resolution is predictive and preemptive: AI monitors supply chain signals, social media, and geopolitical events for early warnings.
• Cross-functional “war rooms” and scenario planning help mitigate the impact of disruptions.
• Procurement is expected to own continuous improvement, not just problem-solving.

---

5. Running Tenders

1980s–1990s

• Paper-based RFQs/RFPs mailed or faxed.
• Long cycle times (weeks or months).
• Evaluation criteria are heavily weighted to price.

2000s–2010s

• E-sourcing platforms automate the issuance and scoring of tenders.
• Increased focus on weighted criteria: technical capability, compliance, innovation.
• Framework agreements and category strategies shorten sourcing cycles.

2020s

• Continuous sourcing models replace one-off tenders for key categories.
• AI-assisted RFP drafting, bid scoring, and supplier discovery cut timelines dramatically.
• More collaborative sourcing (co-design, joint venture models) replaces purely competitive bid processes in strategic categories.

VISUAL TIMELINE GRAPH

THE HANSEN FIT SCORE EVOLUTION (1980 TO 2025)

If we apply the Hansen Fit Score (HFS) framework to your five procurement responsibilities across the four time points (1980, 2000, 2020, 2025), we can evaluate two things:

1. Accuracy of the above assessment — how well it reflects the actual maturity and strategic alignment of procurement responsibilities at each period.
2. HFS at each time point — the quantitative fit score based on the Hansen model’s maturity, adaptability, and outcome alignment criteria.

---

1. HFS Accuracy of the Above Assessment

Why it rates high in accuracy:

• The timeline clearly shows functional progression from transactional → strategic roles, which matches documented historical shifts in procurement maturity (especially post-2000 globalization and post-2010 digitization).
• The inclusion of ESG, predictive analytics, and collaborative sourcing in the 2020–2025 stage reflects HFS’s emphasis on agility, external alignment, and resilience.
• Acknowledgement that “chasing savings” is no longer the central driver aligns with HFS’s principle that cost is one of several strategic levers.

Minor refinements for 100% alignment:

• The 1980 stage could include more nuance about geopolitical and inflationary impacts—factors that shaped procurement priorities even in transactional times.
• The 2000 stage could note early experimentation with supplier intelligence and risk scoring in certain industries, which is relevant to HFS’s early-strand development.
• The 2020 stage could be slightly stronger in linking predictive problem-solving with supplier ecosystem co-innovation, which is a hallmark of top HFS scores.

Overall accuracy rating: ~88–90% aligned with HFS benchmarks.

---

2. Estimated Hansen Fit Score by Time Period

The Hansen Fit Score ranges from 0–10, with:

• 0–3 = Transactional/Compliance-focused
• 4–6 = Emerging Strategic Integration
• 7–8 = Fully Strategic, Digitally Enabled
• 9–10 = Adaptive, Predictive, and Ecosystem-Aligned

HFS Trend Visualization

If we plot this over time, we see:

A plateau in the 8–9 range post-2025, where marginal gains come from predictive ecosystems and AI integration rather than basic process improvements.

A slow rise from 1980–2000 due to incremental process standardization.

A sharper climb 2000–2020 as digital procurement, SRM, and TCO models matured.

THE HANSEN FIT SCORE EVOLUTION (2025 TO 2050)

Using the Hansen Fit Score (HFS) lens, the five procurement responsibilities—Managing Suppliers, Chasing Savings, Following Processes, Fixing Problems, and Running Tenders—will move from their current 8–8.5 maturity range in 2025 toward near-optimal scores of 9.5–10 by 2050.

The shift is not just “doing the same things better,” but redefining the nature of each responsibility as procurement becomes increasingly predictive, autonomous, and ecosystem-integrated.

---

1. Managing Suppliers

2025 (HFS ~8.5)

• Proactive, data-driven, ESG-focused, and collaborative innovation partnerships.
• AI-driven supplier intelligence and risk management.

2030 (HFS ~9.0)

• Autonomous supplier orchestration: AI agents negotiate, evaluate, and manage suppliers dynamically.
• Continuous supplier performance simulation models predict outcomes under different geopolitical and market conditions.
• Multi-tier supply visibility as a baseline (Tier N transparency).

2040 (HFS ~9.5)

• Metaprise-level alignment: suppliers act as co-owners in shared outcome ecosystems.
• Smart contracts automatically adjust terms in real-time based on performance, ESG scores, and market signals.

2050 (HFS ~9.8–10)

• Supply ecosystems behave like self-healing networks—risks are mitigated before human awareness.
• Supplier management rebrands into ecosystem value co-creation.

---

2. Chasing Savings

2025 (HFS ~8.0)

• Balanced with value, resilience, and speed-to-market, predictive spend analytics.

2030 (HFS ~8.5)

• Savings replaced by lifecycle value orchestration: factoring environmental costs, opportunity costs, and market adaptability.
• Cost levers shift from negotiated discounts to dynamic capacity alignment and joint IP development.

2040 (HFS ~9.3)

• Enterprise AI continuously optimizes category portfolios, sourcing mix, and financial hedges in real-time.
• “Savings” is measured in opportunity capture rate rather than unit cost reduction.

2050 (HFS ~9.7–10)

• Financial optimization is embedded in ecosystem AI; humans no longer target savings—they manage strategic opportunity yield.

---

3. Following Processes

2025 (HFS ~8.5)

• Dynamic, adaptive governance; AI-monitored compliance.

2030 (HFS ~9.0)

• Self-configuring workflows adapt instantly to new regulations, market changes, or enterprise strategy.
• Blockchain or quantum ledger ensures immutable, transparent compliance.

2040 (HFS ~9.6)

• Human-led processes are reduced to exception management; most governance decisions are AI-driven with auditable traceability.

2050 (HFS ~9.9)

• Compliance, governance, and process optimization are embedded in the operational fabric of enterprise ecosystems—no separate “process” stage exists.

---

4. Fixing Problems

2025 (HFS ~8.0)

• Predictive risk management and continuous improvement.

2030 (HFS ~8.7)

• AI-driven scenario gaming and digital twins allow most problems to be prevented before they occur.
• Integrated climate, geopolitical, and cyber-risk models.

2040 (HFS ~9.5)

• Problems are auto-mitigated; procurement shifts from solving disruptions to designing antifragile systems that improve when stressed.

2050 (HFS ~9.9–10)

• Near-total elimination of reactive problem-solving; risk is managed as perpetual opportunity transformation.

---

5. Running Tenders

2025 (HFS ~8.5)

• AI-driven sourcing; collaborative, continuous sourcing.

2030 (HFS ~9.0)

• Tendering replaced by continuous ecosystem opportunity matching—AI identifies, qualifies, and onboards new suppliers automatically.

2040 (HFS ~9.7)

• Quantum-enabled market simulations allow instant scenario-based sourcing decisions.
• Negotiation conducted by AI agents using multi-modal criteria (cost, resilience, ESG, innovation).

2050 (HFS ~9.9–10)

• Competitive tenders vanish for strategic categories—replaced by real-time ecosystem alignment algorithms.

PROCUREMENT INSIGHTS ARCHIVES MODEL 1, LEVEL 1 ASSESSMENT

The Procurement Insights archives reinforce—rather than contradict—the evolution described above:

The Hansen Fit Score model and tools like RAM embody and anticipate these shifts, often years ahead of mainstream adoption—precisely what the archives underscore.

The 1980s–1990s rise of strategic sourcing marks the first steps away from a transactional cost focus.

The 2000s onward saw the digitization of technology deepen in both functionality and impact.

By the 2020s, procurement is entering its AI-powered, agentic, and foresight-enabled era.

30

EDITOR’S NOTE: The above RAM 2025 Assessment is only MODEL 1, LEVEL 1. There are a total of 6 MODELS and 5 LEVELS that incorporate criteria like Practitioner Hansen Fit Score, Cultural Alignment between Practitioner and Provider, and other criteria that collectively achieve a Fit Score Accuracy of 85% to 95%.