How the loss of knowledge as experienced buyers leave the workforce creates a structural risk that most organisations underestimate
A quiet crisis in the making
I speak with procurement managers and directors about their teams every week. And increasingly, the same subject comes up: the people who have been with the organisation for twenty, sometimes thirty years, and who will be retiring in another two or three. The question that follows is almost always the same: “Who is going to do this after they’re gone?”
In many organisations, the honest answer is: nobody knows. Not because no one has thought about it, but because the problem builds up so gradually that it never feels urgent enough to really tackle. Until it’s too late.
Over the coming years, a substantial share of the most experienced procurement professionals in many organisations will reach retirement age. These are people who have spent decades building up supplier relationships, category knowledge and organisational insight — knowledge that has never been formally documented and that does not transfer by itself.
Why knowledge transfer is so difficult in procurement
Procurement is a field that leans heavily on tacit knowledge. The kind of knowledge that isn’t written down in a manual and that you can’t pull out of a system. I know that from my own experience.
The people who hold the knowledge are irreplaceable
When you’ve worked as a buyer for years, you build up something that can’t easily be handed over in a job description or an onboarding document. You know which supplier performs under pressure and which one doesn’t. You know how to read a negotiation. You know who to bring along internally to get a difficult decision to land.
That kind of knowledge disappears when someone leaves — unless the transfer has been worked on actively and structurally. And in most organisations, it hasn’t.
Knowledge transfer never becomes a priority
That isn’t because people don’t think it matters. It’s because there is always something more urgent. A request that has to go out. A contract that’s expiring. A supplier escalating. Knowledge transfer is important but not urgent — and in busy teams, that means it slips into the background time and time again.
The consequences are painfully familiar:
- contract knowledge vanishes when a key person leaves
- new employees take longer to become genuinely effective
- mistakes get made that an experienced colleague would have prevented
Recruitment won't solve the problem
The reflex is understandable: if people are leaving, you bring new people in. But the procurement labour market works against that solution considerably.
Quantity isn't there
From my position at xentys, I see every day just how severe the shortage of experienced procurement professionals is. Organisations are looking for people who can step straight into complex environments — category managers, contract managers, supply chain specialists. They exist, but they are scarce. And competition for the people who will make the difference is fiercer than ever.
Quality doesn't match the need
Many graduates have a solid grounding, but lack the specific combination of commercial insight, instinct for risk and stakeholder management that modern procurement demands. You develop that through years of hands-on experience — and that requires time and guidance that stretched teams struggle to provide.
Competition for talent is intensifying
Procurement is increasingly recognised as a strategic discipline. Good news for the standing of the role. Less good news for organisations that are only now starting to think about how attractive they are as an employer. The battle for talent began a long time ago.
The strategic dimension: knowledge as competitive advantage
This is more than an HR question. It is a strategic risk with direct consequences for how an organisation performs.
Continuity of supplier relationships
Supplier relationships are personal. I’ve seen it happen often enough: an experienced buyer leaves, and within six months the terms with that supplier are less favourable. Not because the market has changed, but because the relationship has to be rebuilt from scratch. Trust is built between people — and you can’t hand it over like a file.
Category knowledge as competitive advantage
In complex categories — certainly in technology, but in industrial procurement too — deep category knowledge is a competitive advantage. Organisations that secure this knowledge and pass it on make better decisions and negotiate harder. Organisations that don’t pay a price that is difficult to quantify but very real.
What organisations can do
It starts with visibility. Which employees are key knowledge holders? Which knowledge exists nowhere on paper? What is the short-term risk of departure? Most organisations lack this overview, and it is the foundation for any targeted action.
Next comes structuring how knowledge is secured — not as a project, but as part of the way people work day to day. Documenting contract knowledge, maintaining supplier profiles, deliberately scheduling handovers.
And finally: invest in developing talent for the long term. The opportunity cost of not investing is considerably higher than it looks at first glance.
Conclusion
The ageing of the procurement profession is a creeping risk. Things don’t go wrong all at once — they go wrong gradually, in small steps, until suddenly there is a gap that can’t be filled quickly.
Waiting until the problem announces itself is waiting until it’s too late. The organisations acting now are building a procurement function that will still be strong five years from now. And in the end, that’s what counts.
