A strategy is only good if it survives the PowerPoint presentation.

A strategy must provide guidance. But it must not create a false sense of security.

Especially in purchasing and supply chain management, a crucial condition can change during implementation: A supplier fails. A sourcing region becomes riskier. A new technology alters make-or-buy decisions. Costs and security of supply suddenly find themselves in a different balance.

Then it becomes clear how good the strategy really is.

Transformation needs direction – not rigidity.

The goal itself can be stable – but only under certain conditions. The path to the goal must always be flexible, and above all, the goal itself must be reviewed regularly.

Therefore, I would define transformation differently today: not as achieving a predetermined target state, but as the ability to realign oneself under changed conditions – without losing the strategic direction.

That sounds like a small difference. For companies, it's a fundamental one.

Because suddenly it's no longer about following a transformation plan as precisely as possible. It's about distinguishing between what must remain constant – and what is allowed to change.

• Where do we want to reduce dependencies?
• What risks are we willing to accept?
• When does security of supply take precedence over maximum cost optimization?
• Which technologies and skills do we want to master ourselves?

These are strategic guardrails.

However, whether the path to achieving this leads via a specific supplier, a specific technology, or a specific organizational structure must be constantly reviewed.

This also changes the perspective on efficiency.

For decades, purchasing departments have been heavily trained to reduce options: consolidate suppliers, bundle quantities, standardize processes, and cut costs.

That still makes sense. But in an uncertain world, maximum efficiency in one place can create new dependencies in another.

A second supplier, an alternative source of supply, flexible contract models, or additional technological options may initially appear more expensive. However, they create something that cannot be fully captured by any traditional price analysis: flexibility.

I'm familiar with this value from negotiations as well. Those who only have one option are dependent. Those who have alternatives can decide.

The same applies to supply chains.

The art, therefore, does not lie in offering as many alternatives as possible. It lies in creating options where dependencies could become critical for the company.

However, even the best-case scenario is of little help if a company is unable to act.

And this is precisely where I repeatedly see a weakness in transformation projects.

The organization fully recognizes that something has changed. The data is available. The risk is known.

• But who decides now?
• Who is allowed to deviate from the original plan?
• When is a change significant enough to warrant a reassessment of a sourcing strategy?
• Who can resolve the conflicting goals of cost, security of supply, and speed?

In stable times, one can take one's time with such decisions.

At Emarticon, we have been working for years with a principle that originally came from our IT sourcing projects:

„"Good response to change before planning and measurement."“

This never meant that planning was unimportant. On the contrary.

The idea is:

I have to take into account during the planning phase that my plan will not work out completely.

Contracts need mechanisms for change. Processes must allow for deviations. Decisions must not fail simply because a situation was unforeseeable at the start of a project.

In 2026, I believe this idea is more relevant than ever.

And I would no longer limit it to IT sourcing. For me, it has become a fundamental principle of transformation.

This also changes my understanding of consulting.

Of course, a company needs analyses, scenarios, and a clear strategy.

But for me, the crucial question today is no longer just: "What is the best solution?"„

But also: "How do we ensure that this company continues to make good decisions if today's solution is no longer suitable tomorrow?"„

That is a different claim.

Good advice shouldn't just recommend a path. It should show what assumptions underlie that path, where critical dependencies arise, and what options exist if the circumstances change.

And it must consider the implementation, and more flexibly than ever before, namely in the case of moving targets.

My experience as an interim manager has therefore also changed my work as a consultant.

Anyone who has personally experienced what actually happens six months after a presentation creates the presentation differently.

Perhaps we should therefore also abandon the idea that transformation is ever complete.

1. Start project
2. Develop a target vision
3. Implementing the target vision
4. End project
5. Normal operation

This way of thinking is becoming less and less suitable for purchasing and supply chain management.

Guidelines must be clear. Options must be available where dependencies become critical. And decisions must be able to be made when reality changes.

Therefore, for me, the crucial question in a transformation project is not: "Have we achieved our target vision?"„

Rather: "Is this organization better able today to respond to what we couldn't know yesterday?"„

A strategy is only truly effective if it not only holds up in PowerPoint presentations, but also in a reality that doesn't adhere to those presentations.