For decades, procurement and finance have been uneasy allies. One holds the purse strings. The other spends the money. In theory, they share the same goals. In reality, they often operate at cross-purposes — slowing each other down, duplicating efforts, and moving out of sync.
By Chris Walljasper , Tyson Moore
For decades, procurement and finance have been uneasy allies. One holds the purse strings. The other spends the money. In theory, they share the same goals. In reality, they often operate at cross-purposes — slowing each other down, duplicating efforts, and moving out of sync.
That friction is reaching a breaking point.
The tension isn't just "legacy mistrust" — it's structural. Finance and procurement operate under fundamentally different success metrics that pull them in opposite directions.
Finance is judged on budget adherence, cost reduction, cash-flow predictability, and compliance.
Procurement is measured on risk mitigation, supplier innovation, ESG progress, and total value delivered.
When these metrics clash, even well-intentioned teams undermine each other. A CPO pursuing supplier innovation may push for a long-term partnership with slightly higher unit costs. A CFO under pressure to hit quarterly targets blocks the deal. Both are doing their jobs. Both walk away frustrated.
The result is an organization at war with itself, burning energy on internal friction instead of external competition.
From the CFO's chair, procurement can look inefficient. Long RFP cycles, endless vendor vetting, and too many spreadsheets. Under pressure to move faster and control costs, finance leaders start to wonder: Why does procurement need to touch this at all?
When answers aren't convincing, they route around procurement. Departments sign SaaS contracts without review. Corporate cards fund ad-hoc vendor engagements. Stakeholders spin up subscriptions and worry about approvals later.
The results are predictable. Invoices arrive without purchase orders, making reconciliation and forecasting a nightmare. Maverick spending creeps up, eroding negotiated savings and destroying budget predictability. By the time procurement sees the spend, the money — and the leverage — is gone.
Procurement leaders see a different battlefield. To them, finance's fixation with budget lines misses the bigger picture. Modern sourcing isn't about squeezing pennies — it's about managing geopolitical risk, ensuring ethical supply chains, validating cybersecurity postures, and meeting carbon-reduction commitments.
They point to hard realities that finance often overlooks. Organizations routinely lose contract value post-signature through poor compliance and execution. Companies without early procurement involvement pay premiums later in expedited shipping, vendor remediation, and non-compliance penalties.
To procurement, finance's narrow lens feels short-sighted — optimizing for this quarter's budget at the expense of next year's resilience.
The feud between procurement and finance isn’t just frustrating — it’s expensive. Savings pipelines lose value before they hit the profit-and-loss statement. Early-payment discount opportunities are missed. Manual, slow accounts payable processes tie up working capital that could fuel growth.
Every gap between negotiated and realized value represents margin left on the table. In today’s environment — marked by inflation, supply chain disruption, and geopolitical uncertainty — companies can’t afford this waste.
Alignment isn’t as simple as “shared KPIs” and “co-designed dashboards.” Real trade-offs must be negotiated:
Budget predictability vs. sourcing agility
Cost optimization vs. ESG commitments
Short-term savings vs. long-term supplier innovation
The key is making these trade-offs explicit rather than allowing them to play out through organizational friction. Peace is possible — and not by surrender, but by designing and implementing the right systems.
AI and automation can help reconcile these tensions. Spend analytics, predictive sourcing, and automated contract management give finance the real-time visibility it craves while freeing procurement from manual bottlenecks.
Platforms like Coupa and Ignite make this possible. Coupa integrates sourcing, invoicing, and spend management into a single system of record, providing accurate data for both financial forecasts and supplier strategies. Ignite delivers deep spend intelligence, surfacing opportunities for cost reduction, risk mitigation, and ESG performance in the same view. Both platforms create a single source of truth that finance and procurement can trust — turning shared data into the foundation for alignment systems.
But technology alone isn’t enough. Organizations need a deliberate framework that addresses incentives, governance, and decision rights.
To achieve peace, companies must build systems that give procurement and finance shared power, shared data, and shared wins.
Incentives: Redesign KPIs to reward shared outcomes like total cost of ownership, supplier resilience, and working-capital improvement. When both teams win or lose together, collaboration becomes natural.
Governance: Establish joint decision rights for major spend categories, with clear escalation paths for trade-off decisions. This prevents shadow boxing when roles aren’t clear.
Technology: Implement integrated platforms with AI-powered analytics that deliver a single source of truth for spend, risk, and performance data.
Trust: Involve procurement early in planning cycles. Involve finance early in sourcing decisions. Transparency turns vetoes into partnerships.
The companies that get this right don’t just end the conflict — they turn alignment into a competitive advantage.
In organizations where finance and procurement remain adversaries, no one is winning. Not the profit-and-loss statement, not the C-suite, and certainly not the customer.
In companies where these functions have achieved alignment, the winners are obvious: they move faster on strategic initiatives, capture more value from supplier relationships, and are more resilient when disruption hits.
The war between procurement and finance isn’t inevitable. It’s a choice. Leadership can either make the structural changes needed to end it or continue paying the price for a conflict that serves no one.
Reach out to the Acquis team
Over the next decade, biopharma success will be determined not by the most ambitious science or the largest balance sheets, but by leadership — specifically, by companies that can navigate the industry's bifurcation and develop fluency in the Alliance Economy. Others will likely face acquisition or marginalization.
Read More
Leading PE firms are using AI to eliminate data latency, reduce churn, and transform quarterly reviews into continuous portfolio intelligence.
Read More
We are entering what can best be described as the Alliance Economy, an operating model defined not by linear development pipelines, but by an ecosystem of interdependent players working together to navigate the new biopharma reality.
Read More
Over the next decade, biopharma success will be determined not by the most ambitious science or the largest balance sheets, but by leadership — specifically, by companies that can navigate the industry's bifurcation and develop fluency in the Alliance Economy. Others will likely face acquisition or marginalization.
Read More
Leading PE firms are using AI to eliminate data latency, reduce churn, and transform quarterly reviews into continuous portfolio intelligence.
Read More
We are entering what can best be described as the Alliance Economy, an operating model defined not by linear development pipelines, but by an ecosystem of interdependent players working together to navigate the new biopharma reality.
Read More
