Sourcing processes in purchasing: When fragmentation becomes an inhibitor
The run-up to this year's eLösungstage 2026 has revealed that many purchasing organizations are struggling with fragmented system landscapes. An article in Beschaffung aktuell 05/2026offers a sober assessment of the current state of the digital procurement ecosystem: Poor data quality, heterogeneous systems, and tool stacks lacking consistency are slowing down the digital transformation in purchasing. We believe the solution lies in the architecture, not in the choice of tools.
Content
- The missing step in terms of scope — current market trends
- Five signs of fragmented sourcing processes
- The patchwork of tools and why it happens
- Best-of-breed in purchasing — a matter of process control
- Procurement suite as an alternative?
- The architectural question — why it is truly the key
- Conclusion: The solution lies not in the tool, but in the architecture
Key takeaways
- Tool stacks that lack end-to-end integration are slowing down digital transformation in purchasing, according to the latest market report in Beschaffung aktuell.
- Best-of-breed strategies work best when a system takes the lead in managing processes. In purchasing, that system is ERP or S/4HANA.
- The core problem: The ERP system is being bypassed, even though it is supposed to handle the data and manage the processes.
- SAP-native sourcing approaches eliminate duplicate data models and keep process management within S/4HANA.
The missing step in terms of scope — current market trends
The article “Einkauf zwischen KI-Euphorie und Umsetzungsrealität” in Beschaffung aktuell provides a very precise description of the challenges many digitalization initiatives in purchasing are currently facing: It is not technology that is lacking, but operational consistency. In the context of the BME eLösungstage, three observations coalesce into a clear picture of the market.
- AI remains in the pilot phase. Poor data quality, heterogeneous system landscapes, and unclear objectives are holding back progress. Many purchasing departments have launched pilot projects in spend analytics or supplier management, but they are struggling to scale them up.
- The IT landscape is becoming more complex, not simpler. Many companies have built up an extensive tool stack that, while it optimizes individual processes, is rarely fully integrated. Every new tool solves one problem — and creates an integration problem.
- The debate is shifting. Less emphasis on new solutions, and more on orchestration. The focus is no longer on tool selection, but on how existing systems work together.
These three observations apply to purchasing as a whole. However, they apply to sourcing in particular. This is particularly evident in SAP environments: Companies that have already digitalized their requests, contract awarding, and supplier evaluations almost always run these processes outside the ERP system.
Requirements are created in SAP, transferred to a sourcing platform, and the results flow back to SAP. The interface is there. The end-to-end process is not.
Five signs of fragmented sourcing processes
Fragmented sourcing processes refer to procurement environments in which tendering, supplier management, and operational procurement take place in separate systems without a shared database. Every handoff between systems becomes a manual interface—data is exported, transferred, and reimported. The result: lead times increase, data quality declines, and scaling becomes an integration problem rather than a driver of growth.
Sign 1: Supplier data in multiple systems
Master data in the ERP system, evaluations in Excel, contracts in the DMS. It is unclear which system contains the most up-to-date information.
▶️Why this happens:No single system leads the way in managing supplier data. Each tool maintains its own subset. SAP S/4HANA already includes supplier master data management, but sourcing platforms often build a parallel supplier model that isn’t kept in sync. Purchasers waste time searching for data instead of negotiating. Risk assessments are based on outdated Information.
Sign 2: Processes have multiple points of entry
Purchase requisitions remain in S/4HANA. Data is manually transferred to Excel or a sourcing platform for the request process. Results flow back — once again, manually. Contracts are stored elsewhere. Copy-and-paste replaces integration.
▶️ Why this happens: Sourcing takes place outside the ERP system, even though the requirement and the results are managed there. There is no system that manages the entire process — from the purchase requisition via request processt through to the contract. Standardization fails. Automation is virtually impossible because the process lacks a consistent data basis.
Sign 3: Manual compilation of reports
Request responses via e-mail, compiling quotations in Excel, and creating comparisons manually. By the time the report is finished, the numbers are already out of date.
▶️ Why this happens: Data is stored in different systems without a common database. Analyses require manual consolidation. Executives make decisions based on outdated information. Purchasers spend more time on data preparation than on strategic work.
Sign 4: Processes are stopped by system boundaries
The workflow ends at the system's limit and must be continued manually in the next one. There is no end-to-end integration, neither at IT level nor in day-to-day operations.
▶️Why this happens: No single system leads the entire process. Interfaces connect systems, but not the process itself. In SAP S/4HANA, the purchasing process traditionally ends with the purchase order. Everything that comes before that – determining requirements, issuing requests, and selecting suppliers – takes place outside the system. Every handoff is a potential source of error. Lead times remain long, even though individual steps have been optimized.
Sign 5: Maintaining master data is time-consuming
Repeated master data maintenance across multiple systems, manual data import and export. Changes aren’t propagated everywhere, duplicates are created, and data quality suffers.
▶️ Why this happens: No system manages master data centrally. SAP S/4HANA already recognizes suppliers, material groups, and purchasing organizations. But sourcing platforms import this data, enrich it, maintain it in parallel—and then synchronize it back. purchaser more time on data maintenance than on actual purchasing. Incorrect data leads to poor decisions.
The patchwork of tools — and why it happens
The term may sound vague, but the phenomenon can be described precisely: Individual process steps run in specialized systems, without a shared database or process logic. Sourcing in System A, supplier management in System B, operational procurement in the ERP. Interfaces connect the systems — but not the process. Data is synchronized, mapped, and sometimes updated manually. The process does not flow seamlessly; it jumps from one step to the next.
How does a patchwork of tools emerge?
Rarely due to poor decisions, but mostly as a result of rational, individual decisions made over several years. A sourcing platform for strategic requests here, a supplier portal there, a spend analytics tool for senior management elsewhere. Each decision made sense. Altogether, this creates a landscape in which the individual components are strong, but the overall process is fragmented.
The consequence: Every additional process has to be expanded not only functionally but also in terms of interface architecture. Data mapping requires expansion, synchronization logic needs to be adjusted, and master data maintenance must be coordinated. Complexity does not grow linearly with the business, but rather with the connections between systems.
Scaling becomes an integration problem.
Best-of-breed in purchasing — a matter of process control
The term for the strategy behind this approach is “best-of-breed”: A dedicated solution for each specialist department rather than a universal, all-in-one solution. The idea is not new and has proven successful in many areas — and it also has real strengths in purchasing. But it only works under one condition: One system must control the processes.
| Strengths of best-of-breed | Weaknesses without process control |
|---|---|
| Functional depth – Specialized vendors often offer greater depth and innovation in their specific areas than suite modules | No centralized process control – No system assumes end-to-end responsibility |
| Quick implementation – Individual solutions can be rolled out in weeks rather than months | Scaling as an integration challenge – Every expansion requires interface adjustments |
| Greater user acceptance – Specialized UX beats general-purpose user interfaces | Duplicate data management – Master data is maintained in multiple systems simultaneously |
Practical experience shows that this is precisely what is often missing in purchasing. The Vaillant Group, winner of the 2023 ISM Award in the “Operational Excellence” category, faced exactly this problem in 2018: A multitude of disparate processes and IT solutions that were not integrated end-to-end, neither on the IT side nor in day-to-day operations.
Manuela Heinisch, Head of Group Industrial Supply Chain Processes:“Such solutions are often isolated systems that, while very powerful, are difficult to integrate into our existing processes or require a significant amount of effort to do so. We are looking increasingly for solutions that can be seamlessly integrated into our workflows.”(Source: Beschaffung aktuell 11-12/2023).
In procurement, this central system exists in theory: it is the ERP. In practice, however, the very process that is supposed to be digitized—sourcing—takes place outside of this central system. The ERP is bypassed, even though it is supposed to handle the data and manage the process.
Best-of-breed is not the problem. The lack of process control is.
Procurement suite as an alternative?
The obvious question is: If the best-of-breed solution doesn’t provide end-to-end process control, can a suite do it? A broad, integrated platform would combine sourcing, supplier management, and operational procurement. End-to-end consistency would be ensured within the platform. But is that really the case?
- Vendor lock-in. Anyone who purchases a suite becomes tied to a single vendor, with all the implications this has for the roadmap, pricing, and the pace of innovation. Migrating to another solution later is complex and costly.
- High total cost of ownership. Licenses, implementation, customization, ongoing operation — software suites are expensive to purchase and maintain.
- Resistance to change. Adding new features or adapting to new requirements takes longer on large platforms than on specialized tools.
- A separate data environment alongside the ERP. Even an end-to-end suite cannot replace the ERP system. Sourcing data, supplier master data, and contract information must still be synchronized with the ERP system — that is where day-to-day procurement operations take place.
While the suite resolves the fragmentation across multiple tools, it creates new structural dependencies and leaves the core problem intact: Sourcing still takes place outside the ERP system.
The architectural question — why it is truly the key
If neither more tools nor a broader suite of tools can solve the problem, then the answer lies one level deeper. It’s not a question of which tool to use, but rather where the process takes place.
In today's purchasing landscape, the key data is stored in the ERP system — in SAP environments, this means S/4HANA. Specifically:
- Requirement is created as a purchase requisition
- Materials and suppliers are stored in the master data
- Purchase orders and contracts are documents in the standard SAP system
If sourcing takes place outside this system, that exact data must be transferred to a second system, processed there, and the results fed back into the original system. Each of these steps involves an interface, synchronization, and a potential point of discontinuity.
When sourcing takes place directly within the SAP data model, mapping is not required — there is nothing to synchronize because there is only one database.
SAP-native sourcing integration: The approach taken by FUTURA
Sourcing must take place where the data is located — in the ERP. FUTURA Smart consistently follows this architectural approach of “sourcing within the SAP core.” Strategic procurement processes operate directly within SAP Business Objects — purchase requisition, purchase order, contract — and use the existing business logic of S/4HANA.
➡️ No second data model.
➡️ No synchronization architecture.
➡️ An expansion of the SAP core, not a separate system.
Three specific benefits of this:
✴️ From a ppurchasing perspective: Sourcing begins with a purchase requisition, uses existing material master data, and stores the results in the existing contract. No duplicate data entry, no need to switch systems.
✴️ From an IT perspective: No integration architecture, no additional platform, no second operating model. The expansion is implemented in accordance with the Clean Core principle using standard SAP mechanisms.
✴️ From a project perspective: The rollout for FUTURA Smart typically takes 4–8 weeks — compared to integration projects involving third-party systems that can take several months.
SAP-native sourcing integration avoids duplicate data models and enables S/4HANA to control processes — without the need for an additional platform.
Conclusion: The solution lies not in the tool, but in the architecture
The patchwork of tools in purchasing is real — the latest market report in Beschaffung aktuell describes it clearly. It cannot be solved by adding more tools. Nor can it be solved by a broader suite. The answer lies in the architecture for digitalization in procurement— in the place where processes are running.
This has implications that go beyond sourcing. Anyone who wants to productively scale AI in purchasing, maintain data quality at a reliable level, or meet compliance requirements without increasing interface complexity cannot avoid this architectural decision .
The “gap between AI euphoria and the reality of implementation,” as the article in Beschaffung aktuell is titled, arises precisely in this area: Fragmented system landscapes, a lack of end-to-end integration, and duplicate data storage. Scaling does not fail because of the technology — it fails because of the architecture.
Anyone who wants to draw conclusions from this diagnosis faces two follow-up questions:
- What specific factors should I consider when choosing a sourcing solution?
- And what does this architectural perspective mean for AI initiatives that are already planned or underway?
We will address both of these questions in our upcoming blog posts.
Strategic sourcing directly in SAP S/4HANA—without a complex integration architecture?
