Purchasing in 2026: Four decisive factors for success

When I talk to purchasing managers today, I hear the same buzzwords in almost every company: Shortage of skilled workers, cost pressure, transparency, compliance, digitalization. The problems are well known. What is new is something else: Patience has run out.

While requirements are increasing, purchasing departments in many places are still operating within structures that were designed for a different era. This is particularly evident when dealing with large purchasing suites and SAP-centered transformation approaches.

At the same time, the next trend is taking shape: AI in purchasing. But what exactly is AI supposed to accelerate if processes are not fully digitized and the fundamentals are lacking? In 2026, the dividing line does not run between “digital” and “non-digital.” It runs between solutions that make purchasing more flexible – and those that continue to tie it down. This is precisely the core of purchasing's future viability. Here are our four theses on this topic.

Thesis 1: In 2026, purchasing will not fail because of targets – but because of the logic behind decision-making

Most purchasing departments know their objectives: Reduce costs, manage risks, create transparency, and deliver value. What is lacking is not the will to change, but the operational decision-making power.

All too often, system decisions are made based on IT, architecture, or standardization logic. The purchasing department is allowed to formulate requirements – but does not make the final decision. As a result, solutions are implemented that are technologically sound but slow down the purchasing process from an organizational perspective.

An example: An energy supplier wants to standardize purchasing and improve it digitally. The goals are clear: More transparency, less manual effort, faster processes. The purchasing department formulates its technical requirements. However, the decision is made by the IT and architecture team: "Ariba fits well with the SAP landscape and the one-platform strategy."

The implementation shows that integration was significantly more complex than expected and is falling short of the hoped-for effects. Additional process steps, limited flexibility, and a high level of coordination with IT and platform operations became necessary in day-to-day purchasing.

The project is considered successful in terms of SAP compliance. The purchasing department is working more slowly than before.

The goal itself was not wrong.
What was wrong was the assumption that proximity to SAP automatically meant easy integration and immediate effectiveness in purchasing.

👉2026 clearly shows that purchasing will only be effective if it shapes its own processes – rather than adopting external objectives.

Thesis 2: Large purchasing suites do not solve the purchasing problem – they perpetuate it.

The aspiration is well known: An integrated suite should reduce complexity, standardize processes, and take purchasing “to a new level.” End-to-end, consistent, standardized – at least that's the promise.

The reality in many organizations is more sobering. After twelve to eighteen months of implementation, purchasing departments often work with new interfaces but old processes – and with added value that is difficult to grasp in everyday life.

I encounter this repeatedly in conversations: Large purchasing suites are introduced with comprehensive functionality, often accompanied by specialized service providers, long project durations, and high coordination costs. The introduction is considered successful, and the system is productive.

However, after implementation, many organizations only use some of the available functions. The complexity of the suite remain – the benefits do not scale accordingly.

The problem is not a lack of functionality.
The problem is that complexity is growing faster than usability.

Operational expenses are rising, dependence on the system is growing, and flexibility is declining. Large suites are not drivers of innovation, but rather reinforcers of structure. They perpetuate existing ways of working instead of challenging them.

👉In 2026, it is no longer the completeness of a system that counts, but the adaptability of purchasing.

Thesis 3: Without consistent processes, AI in purchasing is purely symbolic politics.

Few topics are currently debated as intensely in purchasing as artificial intelligence. Forecasts, chatbots, automated analyses –many things seem possible, and many sound like the next big leap in efficiency.

But the crucial question is rarely asked: What should AI actually be based on?

In our projects, we encounter purchasing processes that are not fully digitized. Data flows inconsistently, and media breaks are commonplace. AI cannot fix this – it only amplifies it.

Here is another example from our experience: A company in the chemical industry uses AI in purchasing to identify potential savings and recognize risks at an early stage. Economic pressure is high, and quick results are expected. AI provides valid information and clear recommendations for action.

However, the findings continue to be processed by means of Excel lists, e-mails, and meetings. Decisions must be prepared manually, and measures must be tracked laboriously.

The AI knew more than the organization could process. The purchasing department recognized what needed to be done – but couldn't implement it systematically.

👉In 2026, AI will only create real added value in purchasing where processes are consistent, data is clean, and responsibilities are clear. Wherever these fundamentals are lacking, AI is not a lever and remains a reporting upgrade labeled “innovation.”