If there’s one thing I’ve learned as a purchasing team leader, it’s that there is no such thing as a “perfect buyer” on their own. What really makes a team perform is how well it is structured across two key dimensions: technical knowledge and procurement proficiency.
It sounds simple, but this is exactly where many organizations struggle.
When I build or assess a team, I think in terms of a matrix. On one axis: technical proficiency — how well someone understands what they are buying. On the other: procurement proficiency — their ability to negotiate, manage suppliers, and create commercial value.
The goal is not to maximize both for everyone, but to align the right mix depending on the complexity of the topic.
For high-complexity categories — like aerospace, industrial systems, or IT — technical understanding is critical. The buyer needs to grasp specifications, challenge suppliers, and anticipate risks. Relying entirely on internal stakeholders is not enough.
But technical expertise alone doesn’t deliver value.
A purely technical profile may secure the right solution, but often misses commercial opportunities. For complex scopes, the real value comes from profiles who can combine technical autonomy with strong procurement skills. They bridge engineering and business, and that’s where procurement becomes strategic.
On the other hand, for low to medium complexity categories, the dynamic shifts.
Here, deep technical expertise is less critical. Value is driven by the ability to structure competition, negotiate effectively, and optimize contracts.
In these cases, experienced buyers with strong commercial skills — even without deep technical knowledge — can perform extremely well. Sometimes even better, because they stay focused on cost, leverage, and execution.
Research from Lisa Ellram and Amelia Carr shows that in less complex environments, performance is largely driven by negotiation capability and process discipline rather than technical depth.
So what does a strong team look like?
Not a team where everyone excels at everything, but a balanced mix of profiles:
a few experts combining both technical and procurement mastery for strategic topics,
strong commercial buyers handling simpler scopes efficiently,
and developing profiles growing across both dimensions.
The mistake is to expect one type of profile to cover everything. It doesn’t work. You either lose value on complex topics or overcomplicate simple ones.
And of course, a team is never static.
People evolve. A strong negotiator can build technical depth over time. A technical expert can sharpen commercial skills. As a manager, part of the role is to actively support that progression, not just assign tasks.
In the end, building a purchasing team is less about finding perfect individuals and more about designing the right balance. Matching complexity with capability, and letting each profile operate where they create the most value.
That’s when procurement truly becomes a strategic asset.
And again, this is just my perspective based on experience. I might be wrong or missing pieces. If you see it differently, feel free to reach out and share — that’s also the point of writing these articles.