Procurement has always been integral to product innovation. The failure has never been one of awareness, but of discipline. When organisations treat sourcing decisions, cost structures, supplier exposure, intellectual property, and sustainability implications as issues to be addressed later, they are not postponing detail. They are deferring accountability. In stable environments, that deferral was survivable. In today’s context, it is economically reckless.
Product innovation outcomes are determined across the full lifecycle: material selection, supplier strategy, option and variant governance, cost behaviour at scale, IP exposure, and ultimately decisions to simplify, retire, or redesign products. Procurement decisions sit at the centre of all of these. They accumulate. They persist. And they define what remains possible over time.
That is why product innovation strategy lives or dies in procurement decisions.
Innovation Is Iterative. Commitment Is Cumulative.
Innovation did not suddenly become iterative. Concurrent engineering, early supplier involvement, and cross-functional development have been established practices for decades across multiple industries. The issue is not iteration. It is what iteration has been allowed to conceal.
Teams iterate features, configurations, and variants at increasing speed, while sourcing dependencies, cost rigidity, supplier concentration, IP exposure, and sustainability obligations accumulate quietly in the background. What appears as learning at the product level often coincides with a steady erosion of optionality at the lifecycle level.
Procurement decisions do not reset with each iteration. Material choices, supplier strategies, alternates, contracts, tooling responsibility, and volume assumptions harden early—long before their implications are fully understood. Iteration accelerates learning, but it does not slow down commitment. In many organisations, it accelerates commitment without visibility.
The Gap Is Lifecycle Capability, Not Innovation Process
Most organisations do not lack innovation processes. They lack lifecycle capability. In practice, they struggle to:
- Connect product options to sourcing feasibility and resilience.
- Understand how cost structures behave as volume, mix, and geography change.
- Manage variants as economic and IP commitments, not just marketing responses.
- Decide when products and SKUs should be simplified or delisted—not just when they should launch.
These are not execution failures. They are governance failures. Costed BOMs, qualified alternates, sourcing rules, tariffs, IP partitioning, and volume-based pricing logic are often treated as operational detail. In reality, they are strategic instruments. They determine whether innovation can scale, remain profitable, protect proprietary value, and endure over time.
When these capabilities are weak, innovation rarely fails visibly. It degrades quietly—through margin erosion, portfolio sprawl, supplier lock-in, uncontrolled IP diffusion, and sustainability debt. This is when successful product launches translate into profitability failures.
IP Management Is a Sourcing Strategy
As innovation becomes more distributed, IP is no longer protected by secrecy alone. It is protected by architectural and sourcing decisions.
Decisions on what is designed in-house versus sourced, how products are modularised, which suppliers are granted visibility into specific elements of the product definition, and where process knowledge, tooling, and recipes reside are IP decisions before they are legal ones. These choices define exposure, control, and differentiation long before contracts or protections are invoked.
An open innovation environment does not rely on trust alone. It is enabled by deliberately defining IP boundaries within the sourcing strategy. When procurement is disconnected from IP governance, organisations tend to oscillate between excessive secrecy that slows innovation and uncontrolled disclosure that erodes differentiation.
Well-governed sourcing enables collaboration without surrendering control. Poorly governed sourcing forces organisations to choose between speed and protection—usually too late.
Where Innovation Becomes Irreversible
At some point, iteration gives way to commitment. Supplier strategies stabilise. Tooling ownership is fixed. Contracts embed assumptions. IP exposure crosses thresholds. Sustainability obligations accumulate. SKU counts grow faster than exit paths.
From that point on, organisations are no longer shaping innovation outcomes. They are managing the consequences of earlier procurement and IP decisions. Operational excellence can optimise within those constraints. It cannot remove them. This is where procurement’s role becomes unmistakable—not as a control function, but as the capability that determines when choices become irreversible, and whether those choices were intentional.
Early supplier involvement matters not because it is collaborative, but because it exposes constraints—including IP and sourcing dependencies—while change is still affordable. Its value lies less in speed than in preserving the ability to adapt when assumptions fail.
Procurement Is a Continuous Lifecycle Capability
The most persistent misframing is seeing procurement as just a phase. Procurement is neither early nor late; it is continuous.
It shapes:
- Which products can scale without structural fragility
- Which variants remain economically and legally viable
- Which SKUs should be rationalised or retired
- How sustainability and IP obligations accumulate over time
Seen this way, procurement does not simply support innovation. It defines its boundaries.
Return on innovation is therefore not a post-launch metric. It is the cumulative outcome of procurement, sourcing, and IP decisions made—and revisited—across the lifecycle. Operational optimisation cannot correct poor lifecycle decisions; it can only manage their impact.
Procurement Is the Core of PLM
PLM is not primarily about tools or documentation. It exists to govern product commitment over time. Procurement is where that commitment becomes real.
Product commitment defined upstream must be executable downstream—and this is where ERP and MRP become unavoidable continuations of PLM discipline. ERP operationalises procurement and product decisions into SKU structures, cost roll-ups, pricing logic, and profitability management. MRP translates those same commitments into material requirements, approved alternates, lead times, and substitution rules that determine whether products can actually be built and supplied at scale.
When procurement is treated as peripheral, PLM degrades into documentation—accurate, but economically disconnected. When procurement sits at the core, PLM governs decisions that remain executable, scalable, and defensible across the lifecycle.
If PLM is expected to deliver return on innovation, , scalable deployment, and sustainable portfolios, it can only do so with procurement at its centre.
What are your thoughts?
Disclaimer: articles and thoughts published on v+d do not necessarily represent the views of the company, but solely the views or interpretations of the author(s); reviews, insights and mentions of publications, products, or services do neither constitute endorsement, nor recommendations for purchase or adoption.
About the Author
