Published on October 21, 2026<\/p>\n<\/div>
The project has been running for months. The department has defined its requirements, spoken with potential suppliers, and internally already has an idea of what the solution should look like.<\/p>\n
Then comes the shopping, and it means:
\n\u201e"Could you negotiate the price again?"\u201c<\/p>\n
I've often experienced situations like this in very different companies. And of course, it's frustrating. Because by that point, many of the really big levers have already been taken.<\/p>\n
But at some point I started to turn the question around: The usual answer is: Because the purchasing department needs to be involved earlier. A developer, IT manager, or production manager doesn't bring another function into their project earlier simply because the organizational chart dictates it. They do so when that function helps them solve their problem more effectively.<\/p>\n In my view, this is precisely where a weakness of many purchasing organizations lies.<\/p>\n They expect the specialist departments to recognize their strategic value. The more important question, however, is whether procurement truly understands the goals and problems of the specialist departments.<\/p>\n For a developer, a particular technology can be crucial. For production, it's security of supply. For IT, it's speed. For finance, it's profit and cash flow.<\/p>\n Anyone who talks primarily about tender rules, approvals and savings in this situation will quickly be perceived as an additional process instance.<\/b><\/p>\n And legal bodies are often only brought in when they are needed.<\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div> This is particularly problematic because purchasing could contribute a great deal, especially in the early stages.<\/p>\n Even before a solution is found, completely different questions can be asked: If the specifications, supplier, and solution are already largely determined, the scope for negotiation narrows. A good buyer might still be able to negotiate, but many fundamental decisions have already been made.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div> This creates a cycle: In my projects, I have repeatedly experienced that good procurement decisions rarely arise from a single perspective.<\/p>\n What good is the lowest price if the quality isn't right? What good is the technically best solution if it can't be reliably delivered? And what good is security of supply if costs spiral out of control?<\/p>\n That's why we at Emarticon work with the QLTC approach: quality, logistics, technology, and cost management are considered together. The purchasing department builds and moderates this cross-functional team.<\/p>\n The crucial point for me, however, is not the model itself. When purchasing, specialist departments, quality, logistics, and, if applicable, finance work together on a task early on, the role of purchasing changes. It doesn't just come in once all the essential decisions have been made. It contributes to making the decision better in the first place. Current research shows that many companies are working on precisely this point.<\/p>\n BCG describes the necessary transformation in 2026 from a late-engaging "reactive gatekeeper" to a partner that collaborates with business and finance to shape requirements, specifications, and sourcing strategies.BCG Global<\/a>)<\/p>\n Gartner also sees a crucial lever in the early stages: If procurement can already influence project requirements, costs, risks, and long-term supply can be better managed. If, on the other hand, it is perceived primarily as a cost-focused function that is insufficiently aligned with business priorities, it loses influence.Gardener<\/a>)<\/p>\n What I find particularly interesting about this is that the discussion is no longer just about involving the purchasing department earlier. Instead of just asking \u201eHow do we get the departments to involve us earlier?\u201c, I would ask three other questions:<\/p>\n If the answers are convincing, part of the problem may solve itself.<\/p>\n<\/div> For me, strategic purchasing doesn't start with sitting at the table earlier. <\/p>\n \ud83d\udc49<\/b> <\/b>More on this topic:<\/p>\n Learn more about how Emarticon strategically develops purchasing organizations:
\nWhy should the department have involved purchasing earlier?<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>Early involvement must have a reason.<\/h3><\/div><\/div><\/div>
\nBut that doesn't necessarily help.<\/p>\n![](\"https:\/\/emarticon.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/14-Impuls-Foto.png\")
<\/span>The greatest leverage often lies before the tender process.<\/h3><\/div>
\nDo we need precisely this specification? What requirements are driving up costs? What risks arise from this? What alternatives does the procurement market offer? Are there other technologies or business models?<\/p>\n<\/div>
\nThe later purchasing is involved, the less it can contribute. The less it can contribute, the lower its perceived benefit. And the less reason there is to involve it earlier in the next project.
\nOnly the purchasing department itself can break this cycle.<\/b><\/p>\n
\nIt's about collaboration.<\/b><\/p>\n
\nThat, for me, is precisely what strategic purchasing entails.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>Why this topic is becoming more important again<\/h3><\/div>
\nThe crucial question is what he needs to contribute to make others want him involved from the very beginning.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div>Three questions purchasing managers should ask themselves<\/h3><\/div>
\n
\n<\/b>He begins by giving a good reason why he is brought to the table earlier.<\/b><\/p>\n<\/div>
\n\u2192 Strategic purchasing at Emarticon:<\/a><\/p>\n<\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div><\/div>