Procurement: Drop the "Control Tower" Analogies, Please

Many procurement consultancies, and sometimes in -house departments seem intent on promoting the value of, or referring too the "procurement control tower" these days. Apparently, someone decided this aviation analogy perfectly captures procurement's role - providing an all-seeing, all powerful, all-controlling overview of operations wielding the power and influence of a procurement overlord. However, I am here to argue that there are perhaps a few key differences between air traffic control and managing actual human beings that procurement proffessionals should consider before latching onto this analogy. Especially in the case of procurement consultancies, should they not know better?

To start, air traffic controllers direct aircraft, not people. Planes are designed to follow instructions without complaint or questioning authority. Humans, on the other hand, generally don't appreciate being controlled against their will. Telling suppliers or business stakeholders that procurement will act as the "control tower" is more likely to lead to resentment than model behaviour and compliance.

Secondly, towers don't have emotions, diverse motivations or nuanced objectives. Whilst a plane's objective is to safely take off and land as directed, people on the other hand bring feelings, egos, and conflicting priorities into the equation that need to be accounted for and enabled, not controlled. Effective procurement requires empathy, relationship building, and aligning interests - not just issuing orders from up high designed to control behaviour.

Also, air traffic control has precise protocols and specifications designed to eliminate variations and unpredictability. But in business, project requirements are often unclear, change is constant, and there are more exceptions than rules. Strict controls and micro-management will only achieve compliance, not partnership. And isn't partnership - with suppliers, business-users, and other functional stakeholders - the ultimate goal for the modern procurement function?

Finally, let's face it - nobody likes to feel controlled. Even if the analogy was apt, advertising one's controlling tendencies is hardly an appealing message! Suppliers and stakeholders would likely prefer to work with a strategic partner focused on optimization and collaboration rather than an authoritarian overlord. The implication that procurement's role is to take over the reins, control, manage, or otherwise overpower - will build barriers rather than boost cooperation.

While control and oversight are obviously important governance functions, procurement professionals should avoid labelling themselves as a "control tower" in communications with others. The phrase suggests an inaccurate and off-putting analogy that will most likely do more harm than good in building productive relationships. There are better ways to convey procurement's strategic value without implying that people need to be controlled against their will or that emotions and variability must be eliminated at all costs. Or that humans are no different to planes that need to be micro-managed and directed within an inch of their life. It is for this reason why we always refer to procurement's influence and impact, as opposed to "control."

So, join me and choose collaboration over compliance, partnership over policing, and influence over oversight. Let's replace the Control Tower with "Collaboration Cove" or perhaps "Optimisation Oasis", or perhaps "Guidance Glade?"

To be honest, anything is better than "The Control Tower!"