The Transformation Of The Procurement Professional (2007 to 2025)

EDITOR’S NOTE: There is an old saying that no matter how much things change, they stay the same. In today’s post, I will examine two 2025 posts by Max Henry and Marijn Overvest on Procurement Tactics, comparing them to my August 3, 2007, post, Procurement’s expanding role and the executive of the future.

Overview of the Articles

The 2025 LinkedIn article “Old Procurement just got canceled. 🚫” (Procurement Tactics weekly digest, edition 124) discusses the shift from traditional cost-focused procurement to a modern, value-driven approach, emphasizing AI integration, strategic partnerships, and professional adaptation. It compares to Hansen’s 2007 blog post (“Procurement’s expanding role and the executive of the future”), which explores procurement’s strategic evolution, functional assimilation, and talent needs amid business changes, and Max Henry’s 2025 LinkedIn post (“AI’s Silent Takeover: 10 Supply Chain Jobs That Won’t Survive the Decade”), which predicts AI-driven automation of routine supply chain roles and the rise of strategic, AI-augmented positions.

Below is a structured comparison, highlighting similarities/parallels and differences for each pairing.

Comparison to Hansen’s 2007 Post

Similarities/Parallels

• Shift from Tactical to Strategic Roles: Both emphasize procurement’s evolution beyond routine tasks. Hansen’s post highlights a “class distinction” where strategic thinkers (worth 10–12 average buyers) drive organizational success, advocating for executives who speak “business language” and integrate procurement strategically. Similarly, the Procurement Tactics article contrasts “old-school” cost-cutting with modern value creation, supplier partnerships, and leadership, positioning procurement as an “enabler” rather than a gatekeeper.
• Talent Development and Adaptation Challenges: Hansen discusses the talent crunch, risks of external hires, and the need for homegrown leaders (referencing Jim Collins’ Good to Great), stressing adaptation to broader business assimilation. The 2025 article parallels this by urging professionals to adapt through training (e.g., AI Fundamentals courses) and building business cases for AI, implying a similar need for internal upskilling to avoid resistance or obsolescence.
• Broader Organizational Impact: Both link procurement decisions to enterprise-wide consequences. Hansen uses examples like a PC manufacturer’s collapse from poor sourcing or Fisher-Price’s recall to show “catastrophic” risks of tactical focus. The Procurement Tactics piece echoes this with strategic shifts toward sustainability (e.g., “Sustainability At The Source”) and data-driven insights, highlighting opportunities in total value but risks in AI adoption delays.
• Forward-Looking Mindset: Hansen anticipates procurement’s assimilation into functions like finance, predicting a rise in “generalists.” The article builds on this by predicting AI-enabled streamlined operations and company-wide adoption, framing it as a “flex” toward innovation.

Differences

• Driver of Change: Hansen’s post focuses on corporate perceptions, functional integration, and human talent dynamics in a pre-AI era, without mentioning technology. In contrast, the Procurement Tactics article centers on AI and automation as primary disruptors (e.g., AI agents, predictive analytics), portraying technology as the catalyst for tactical evolution.
• Tone and Specificity: Hansen’s is analytical and cautionary, debating assimilation’s pros/cons with historical examples. The 2025 piece is more prescriptive and optimistic, offering courses (e.g., Category Management, Innovation in Procurement) and tools like AI Agent Business Canvas, with a digest-style format emphasizing actionable advice over debate.
• Scope of Roles: Hansen differentiates “low-level” buyers from strategic executives, focusing on leadership qualities. The article broadens this to team-wide evolution, including buyers and leaders, with less emphasis on hierarchies and more on collective AI proficiency.
• Time Horizon and Urgency: Hansen’s 2007 view is reflective of gradual shifts, while the 2025 article conveys immediacy (“just got canceled”), tying urgency to rapid AI advancements.

Comparison to Max Henry’s 2025 Post

Similarities/Parallels

• AI-Driven Job Transformation: Both predict AI’s role in automating routine tasks and evolving professions. Henry’s article lists 10 at-risk jobs (e.g., demand planners, invoice clerks) in a “silent takeover,” urging retraining for AI oversight and strategic insights. The Procurement Tactics piece aligns by discussing AI agents’ challenges and fundamentals training, implying obsolescence for non-adapters and opportunities in AI-integrated roles.
• Focus on Adaptation and Upskilling: Henry emphasizes “retraining, redeploying, and redesigning roles” to blend human judgment with AI for competitive advantage. Similarly, the article promotes AI courses for procurement teams (e.g., aiming for company-wide adoption in 21 days) and building business cases, highlighting team experimentation with AI as a path to evolution.
• Strategic Value Over Routine Work: Henry positions future roles in data orchestration and collaboration, moving beyond manual processes. The Procurement Tactics article parallels this shift from “cost-cutting” to “creating value” via AI and predictive analytics, with examples like Innovation in Procurement courses for enhanced decision-making.
• Risks and Opportunities in Disruption: Both frame AI as a “revolution” with risks (e.g., being “left behind” in Henry; approval hurdles for AI agents in Procurement Tactics) but opportunities in hybrid models. They stress proactive leadership to mitigate failures and leverage insights for resilience.

Differences

• Scope and Specificity: Henry’s post is supply chain-focused, explicitly listing 10 jobs facing obsolescence with a decade-long timeline. The Procurement Tactics article is procurement-centric, discussing broader tactics and mindsets (e.g., total value, sustainability) without naming specific jobs, instead emphasizing evolution through training rather than outright elimination.
• Tone and Approach: Henry adopts a dramatic, warning tone (“silent takeover,” “won’t survive”) to highlight urgency. The 2025 digest is more motivational and practical, using emojis (🚫) and course promotions for empowerment, with a weekly update format versus Henry’s standalone prediction.
• Technological Depth: Henry delves into AI’s automation specifics (e.g., for freight schedulers). The article covers AI more holistically, including agents, analytics, and sustainability integrations, but ties it to strategic courses rather than job-by-job breakdowns.
• Broader Themes: Henry concentrates on workforce revolution, while the Procurement Tactics piece expands to sustainability, supplier partnerships, and data insights, offering a more multifaceted view of modern procurement.

Overall Insights

The Procurement Tactics article serves as a bridge between Hansen’s foundational strategic evolution (human-centric, pre-tech) and Henry’s AI-specific disruptions, synthesizing both into a 2025 context of tech-enabled value creation. Parallels across all three underscore enduring themes like strategic adaptation and talent upskilling, while differences reflect technological acceleration—from 2007’s business assimilation to 2025’s AI dominance. This progression demonstrates a consistent trajectory in procurement’s maturation, where ignoring shifts risks irrelevance, but embracing them unlocks competitive edges.

30

BONUS COVERAGE – PERSONNEL ALIGNMENT

New Hansen Fit Score Feature Launch: Practitioner And Provider Personnel Alignment Model

The personnel profile system essentially creates “competency insurance” that protects organizational capability during personnel disruption – invaluable during the current market transformation period where procurement talent is increasingly mobile and AI transformation demands specific competency combinations.

PROFILE DASHBOARD – PERSONNEL ALIGNMENT SCORES