In many medium and large organizations, the tension between IT departments and procurement teams is not an exception — it is the norm.
On the surface, everything looks structured:
processes are defined, tenders are conducted, procedures are followed.
Yet the result is often disappointing — systems underperform, costs grow over time, and accountability becomes blurred.
So why does this happen?
And why do both sides genuinely believe they are doing the right thing, while the business ultimately loses?
Two Logics Inside One Company
The Procurement Perspective
Procurement teams operate under clear and measurable KPIs:
-
lowest price
-
formal compliance with the specification
-
procedural transparency
-
regulatory and audit safety
From their point of view:
“Our job is to buy cheaper and eliminate procurement risk.”
And within their responsibility — this logic makes sense.
The IT Perspective
IT teams think in a completely different dimension:
-
system stability
-
scalability
-
integration
-
cybersecurity
-
long-term support
For IT, price is only one factor, not the deciding one.
Their logic is:
“Our job is to make sure the system works for the next 3–5 years — not just look affordable at purchase.”
Where the Conflict Begins
The issue is not incompetence.
And it is not about people.
The core problem is misaligned objectives.
This conflict usually appears in three critical areas:
1. Price vs. Architecture
Procurement focuses on minimizing upfront cost.
IT understands that cheaper solutions often mean:
-
higher maintenance complexity
-
poor compatibility
-
hidden costs later
But these risks are rarely reflected at the tender stage.
2. Formal Specifications vs. Real Needs
In many companies, technical specifications:
-
are copied from old projects
-
become outdated before publication
-
fail to reflect real workloads and security requirements
Procurement strictly follows the document.
IT later has to “fix” the solution in production.
3. Responsibility Without Authority
Once the system is deployed, all operational issues usually land on IT:
-
instability
-
expensive support
-
unresponsive vendors
Yet the key procurement decisions were often made without IT’s final say.
Why the Business Pays the Price
This conflict rarely shows up in reports, but its cost is real:
-
repeated purchases
-
unexpected license upgrades
-
emergency redesigns
-
growing technical debt
-
increased operational and security risks
In practice, the company pays twice:
first during procurement,then throughout the system’s lifecycle.
How Companies Can Actually Fix This
The good news:
this problem is solvable — without breaking existing processes.
1. Shared KPIs for IT and Procurement
If procurement is evaluated only by price, conflict is inevitable.
Effective companies introduce additional metrics:
-
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO)
-
operational risk
-
support and lifecycle costs
-
alignment with business strategy
2. Joint Ownership of Technical Specifications
Specifications should be:
-
living documents
-
architecture-driven, not checklist-driven
-
understandable for both technical and non-technical stakeholders
The strongest projects are those where IT and procurement design the specification together.
3. Involving an Independent IT Partner
More organizations now involve external IT partners who:
-
are not driven by selling the cheapest option
-
are not tied to a single vendor
-
translate technical decisions into business impact
This is where real partnership value emerges.
Final Thoughts
The conflict between IT and procurement is not a cultural problem.
It is a decision-structure problem.
Companies that:
-
align objectives
-
look beyond initial price
-
think in lifecycle terms
build resilient IT environments instead of constantly “repairing” them.
This is how IT starts working for the business — not against it.