Few accusations persist within the company as persistently as the claim that purchasing slows things down. This department is particularly often targeted when an order is delayed, approval is pending, or a project starts later than planned.

In most cases, the shopping process is where a delay that originated elsewhere becomes apparent.

This first article in the series examines a common misconception about procurement and tests whether it holds up to reality. You will learn why delays rarely originate in procurement, why this bias affects both operational and strategic procurement, and what a company misses out on when it views procurement merely as a process operator.

Why purchasing becomes visible when others hesitate

Operational procurement is usually measured by its most visible result: the order itself and the time it takes to place it. However, this perspective overlooks everything that precedes the order. Procurement is at the end of a long chain of decisions made by others, and it can only act once these decisions have been made. If delays occur due to other stakeholders, they only become apparent to procurement, leading to the blame being placed on the department. Focusing solely on this final stage confuses the point where a problem is noticed with the point where it originates. This confusion perpetuates the persistent perception that procurement is slow.

Shopping has two faces

To contextualize this evaluative perspective , it's worth examining what purchasing actually is, as it has two faces that often overlap in daily practice. One is operational purchasing, which ensures availability , initiates orders, processes inquiries, and guarantees that the required materials arrive on time. The other is strategic purchasing, which shapes supplier relationships, monitors markets, negotiates terms, and sets the course for the conditions under which purchases are made. While the former keeps the business running smoothly, the latter determines the scope within which that business operates.

The prejudice regarding speed applies to both of these aspects, albeit in different ways. Operational purchasing is considered slow because, among other things, it reveals what others have delivered too late. For example, a purchase requisition might be submitted too late because no budget was available beforehand, or the supplier's prefabricated material might arrive late because the processing time between customer order receipt and creation and design approval is too short.

Strategic procurement is often seen as a hindrance because its work requires time, which no one wants to give in moments of urgency. Those who need a quick signature on a contract perceive the question of a more reliable alternative as a delay. Such an alternative might still be in the onboarding process with the procurement or quality assurance department. In both cases, the procurement process's diligence is interpreted as a hindrance, even though its true aim is to prevent harm.

The real cause is the timing.

As explained above, the actual delay usually lies in the timing of the integration. The following illustrates how this process typically unfolds step by step in practice:

Initially, a need arises in a specialist department, where it is discussed, planned, and specified. Once everything is decided, it is passed on to purchasing, always with the request to procure it quickly. However, this procedure does not take into account that the request usually arrives at purchasing at the last minute, that an unclearly formulated need requires clarification, or that the process also includes approval for the safety of the entire company.

What the purchase actually achieves

Operational purchasing ensures that the golden rule of right time, right price, right quality is upheld. It processes orders, conducts inquiries and tenders, maintains supplier relationships, and ensures the supply chain upon which the entire value chain rests. Strategic purchasing, in turn, ensures this supply is secured under favorable conditions by understanding the market, identifying dependencies early on, and negotiating future terms today. Both of these roles are particularly noticeable when they are absent.

Many companies assume that the value of procurement lies in the speed of processing. In reality, a large part of its value lies in what doesn't happen in the first place: the supply chain disruption that was avoided, the overpriced purchase that wasn't necessary, the bottleneck that was identified in time. Good procurement prevents problems, and prevented problems are invisible. This is precisely what makes it so easy to underestimate its contribution.

This underestimation rarely goes unpunished , because those who view purchasing as a mere processing department involve it late, measure it against the wrong criteria, and leave its expertise untapped. Decisions about suppliers, terms, and requirements are then made elsewhere, often without the perspective of those who know the market and cost structure best. The competitive disadvantage (or, as it's more commonly known, the damage) usually manifests gradually. It appears in contracts that are less favorable than they need to be and in dependencies that no one saw coming. Those who underestimate procurement also lose a degree of control over their own costs and profit margins.

Conversely, this demonstrates what becomes possible when purchasing is involved early in the process. By involving them while a need is still taking shape, purchasing gains a partner who understands the market. This allows purchasing to identify alternatives, question requirements that unnecessarily drive up prices, and consolidate the needs of different departments that would otherwise be procured individually and at a higher cost. The department that was once merely executing the order at the end of the chain thus becomes an active participant in shaping the process from the very beginning.

What this means for practical application

Anyone wanting to move procurement out of its perceived role as a "brake" can focus on a single lever: the timing of its involvement. The first step is to actively bring procurement and its expertise to the table where needs arise, not just when they've been fully defined. Even participating in an early planning round changes the questions that are asked. The second step is to measure procurement's performance by what it truly influences—namely, avoided costs and guaranteed supply—and not solely by order processing time. None of these steps costs money; they only require a willingness to view procurement differently.

Why it's worth taking a look at the shopping

Those who view purchasing merely as an execution department are failing to fully utilize the department with the best overview of costs, suppliers, and requirements across the entire company. Purchasing sees where money is tied up, which suppliers are critical, and where supplies are consistently delivered late. This overview holds enormous potential for added value for the company.

From prejudice to honest question

Purchasing departments often have a negative image that bears little resemblance to their actual role. This isn't a cause for complaint, but it is a reason to take a closer look. Misjudging a department means making decisions about it based on flawed criteria.

This leads to the question that forms the basis of the next article. If purchasing isn't the bottleneck, what is really slowing down your processes? The obvious answer is usually that the right software is lacking. We'll examine whether that's true next.