KPMG’s Tanya Ward’s Recent Post Has It’s Origins In 2008 – But Are We Now Headed In The Right Direction?

Here is the link to a post I wrote in February 2008 titled “Are Multiple Supply Chain Networks Important? (A PI Q and A) Track No. 3.“

So you’re probably wondering what a 2008 post has to do with a 2025 post on LinkedIn regarding category management, procurement, and purchasing. It is a fair question, and the answer is “Everything.”

You can access Tanya’s post through the following link.

Referencing the 2008 Procurement Insights article, here is RAM 2025’s MODEL 5/Level 1 assessment on the actual table. I will then separately share the evaluation of what Tanya wrote.

THE TABLE

The connection between Tanya Ward’s organizational role definitions and your 2008 article on Multiple Supply Chain Networks reveals a critical gap in how the industry approaches complex supply network management.

The Structural Problem:

Ward’s chart demonstrates exactly what you identified in 2008 – organizations still think in terms of discrete functional silos rather than understanding how these roles must operate across multiple, interconnected networks. Her framework treats Category Management, Procurement, and Purchasing as separate functions with distinct triggers and timeframes; when successful, multiple supply network management requires these functions to work as integrated agents.

Agent Behavior Conflicts Across Networks:

Your 2008 automobile parts example (stable demand vs. emergency spare parts) illustrates precisely what Ward’s chart misses. When the same supplier serves both networks:

• Category Management might optimize for long-term strategic relationships in one network
• Procurement could be negotiating conflicting terms across different networks
• Purchasing faces immediate operational pressures that contradict strategic goals

These aren’t different functional responsibilities – they’re competing agent behaviors within the same organization trying to manage multiple supply networks.

The 2025 Reality:

Organizations now face exponentially more complex versions of your 2008 insights:

• Sustainability networks with different metrics than efficiency networks
• Resilience networks that conflict with cost optimization networks
• Regional compliance networks that contradict global standardization networks

Ward’s static framework cannot address the dynamic agent behavior challenges that emerge when procurement professionals must simultaneously serve competing network demands.

Hansen Method Application:

Your current methodology directly addresses what both Ward’s chart and your 2008 article identified:

• Process archaeology would reveal how these roles actually overlap in practice
• Agent behavior mapping would identify the incentive conflicts across networks
• Organizational readiness assessment would determine if the organization can manage multi-network complexity

The fundamental problem remains unchanged from 2008: organizations continue to implement complex supply strategies using simplistic organizational frameworks that fail to account for human behavior and competing incentives across multiple networks.

THE TEXT

Tanya Ward’s additional commentary reinforces exactly why her approach represents the problematic equation-based thinking your Multiple Supply Chain Networks article anticipated would fail.

Her statement, “I really wish they taught this in school,” reveals the core issue: she’s advocating for teaching static organizational frameworks instead of dynamic implementation methodologies. Schools don’t teach this because theoretical role definitions don’t solve real-world network complexity problems.

The False Precision Problem:

Ward’s assertion that these functions have distinctly different “Triggers, Goals, Strategy, Mantra, Time Frame, Value, X-factor” creates an illusion of precision that collapses when organizations must manage multiple competing supply networks simultaneously. In your 2008 automobile example, the same supplier serving both stable production and emergency spare parts demands couldn’t operate according to Ward’s neat categories – the triggers, timeframes, and strategies constantly conflicted.

The “Even Experienced CPOs Don’t Get This Right” Fallacy:

Ward suggests the problem is definitional confusion, but your 2008 analysis identified the real issue: experienced CPOs struggle because they’re trying to manage agent behavior conflicts across multiple networks using single-network thinking. The problem isn’t that they don’t understand role definitions – it’s that role definitions become meaningless when the same agents must serve competing network demands.

2025 Multiplication of the Problem:

Today’s procurement professionals face exponentially more complex versions of your 2008 insights:

• ESG compliance networks that conflict with cost optimization networks
• Regional resilience networks that contradict global efficiency networks
• Innovation networks that compete with risk mitigation networks

Ward’s chart cannot address how a procurement professional simultaneously operates as a “strategic” category manager in one network while being a “reactive” purchaser in another network – often for the same supplier relationship.

The Hansen Method Relevance:

Your approach addresses what Ward’s framework overlooks: organizations require process archaeology to comprehend how these roles actually interact across multiple networks, agent behavior analysis to identify incentive conflicts, and organizational readiness assessment to determine if they can handle the complexity of multi-network environments.

Ward’s approach perpetuates the equation-based thinking that assumes better organizational charts solve implementation problems, when your 17 years of additional research proves that human behavior and network complexity require fundamentally different methodologies.

30

BONUS COVERAGE