What Is a Supply Chain Control Tower, and Does Your Organisation Actually Need One?

"Supply chain control tower" is one of the most used and least consistently defined terms in supply chain management. It appears in technology vendor presentations, consulting proposals, analyst reports, and conference keynotes. It is used to describe everything from a $50 million global technology platform with real-time tracking across 40 countries to a PowerBI dashboard that shows inbound shipment status for a single distribution centre. The term has been stretched so far that it has become almost meaningless without context.

This matters because Australian organisations are being sold control tower solutions without a clear understanding of what a control tower is, what it is supposed to do, what it costs to build and operate, and whether the investment is justified by the value it delivers. Some organisations genuinely need a control tower. Many do not. Most would benefit more from getting the fundamentals right, accurate data, consistent processes, and basic visibility, than from investing in a sophisticated platform that sits on top of broken foundations.

This article cuts through the marketing to explain what a supply chain control tower actually is, what the different levels of capability look like, where the value comes from, and how Australian organisations should think about whether and how to invest.

What a Control Tower Actually Is

At its core, a supply chain control tower is a centralised function, supported by technology, that provides visibility across the supply chain and enables coordinated decision-making when things deviate from plan.

The word "centralised" is important. A control tower consolidates information that would otherwise be dispersed across functions, systems, and organisations (suppliers, logistics providers, internal operations) into a single view. The word "function" is equally important. A control tower is not just a dashboard or a piece of software. It is a combination of people, processes, and technology that together provide the capability to see what is happening, understand what it means, and take action.

The analogy to air traffic control is instructive. An air traffic control tower does not fly the planes. It provides the visibility and coordination that allow planes to operate safely and efficiently within a shared system. A supply chain control tower does not run the warehouse, drive the trucks, or manage the suppliers. It provides the visibility and coordination that allow those functions to operate more effectively as an integrated system.

Levels of Capability

Control towers exist on a spectrum of capability. Understanding where your organisation sits on this spectrum, and where it needs to be, is the starting point for any investment decision.

Level 1: Visibility. The most basic control tower capability is the ability to see what is happening across the supply chain. Where are inbound shipments? What is the status of purchase orders? What is the current inventory position across locations? Are there any exceptions or alerts that require attention? This level is essentially a monitoring capability: aggregating data from multiple sources (ERP, WMS, TMS, supplier portals, carrier tracking) into a consolidated view. The value comes from replacing the fragmented, manual, and often delayed information flows that characterise most supply chain operations with a near-real-time picture of current status. Most Australian organisations that invest in control tower capability are operating at this level or working toward it.

Level 2: Analytics and alerting. The next level adds analytical capability to the visibility foundation. Rather than just showing current status, the control tower analyses the data to identify patterns, detect emerging issues, and generate alerts when actual performance deviates from plan. Late shipment alerts, inventory threshold warnings, demand-supply imbalance flags, and supplier performance trend analysis are typical capabilities at this level. The value comes from shifting from reactive problem detection (finding out about issues when they become crises) to proactive issue identification (flagging potential problems while there is still time to intervene).

Level 3: Decision support. At this level, the control tower provides not just visibility and alerts but recommended actions. When an inbound shipment is delayed, the control tower models the downstream impact (which customer orders are affected, what are the alternative fulfilment options, what is the cost of each option) and presents decision options to the supply chain team. This requires more sophisticated analytics, scenario modelling capability, and integration with planning and execution systems. Few Australian organisations have reached this level of maturity, though it is where the highest value from a control tower investment is realised.

Level 4: Autonomous orchestration. The most advanced control tower capability involves automated decision-making and execution. The system detects an issue, evaluates options, selects the optimal response, and triggers the execution without human intervention (or with human oversight on exception only). This level requires deep system integration, high data quality, well-defined business rules, and a high degree of trust in the system's decision-making. It exists in pockets, for example in automated inventory replenishment or dynamic transport routing, but fully autonomous end-to-end supply chain orchestration remains aspirational for most organisations globally, let alone in Australia.

Where the Value Comes From

The value of a control tower is not in the technology itself. It is in the decisions the technology enables. Specifically, a control tower creates value in four ways.

Faster issue detection. In a supply chain without centralised visibility, issues are typically detected when they cause a downstream failure: a stockout, a missed delivery, a production disruption. By that point, the response options are limited and expensive. A control tower that detects the issue earlier, when the inbound shipment is delayed rather than when the shelf is empty, creates time. Time to find an alternative source, to adjust the production schedule, to communicate with the customer, to implement a workaround. That time has direct commercial value.

Better coordination. Supply chain decisions are interdependent. A procurement decision affects inventory. An inventory decision affects logistics. A logistics decision affects customer service. In most organisations, these decisions are made independently by different functions with incomplete information about each other's constraints and priorities. A control tower that provides a shared view across functions enables more coordinated decision-making, reducing the sub-optimisation that occurs when each function optimises its own silo.

Reduced cost of disruption. When disruptions occur, the cost of response is directly related to the speed and quality of decision-making. An organisation that detects a supply disruption early, understands the downstream impact, evaluates the response options, and executes the optimal response quickly will incur significantly lower disruption costs than one that detects the same disruption late and scrambles to respond. The control tower does not prevent disruptions. It reduces the cost of dealing with them.

Performance improvement over time. A control tower that captures data on supply chain performance, exception types, response effectiveness, and root causes provides the analytical foundation for continuous improvement. Over time, patterns emerge: recurring supplier issues, systematic forecast biases, consistent logistics bottlenecks. These patterns, visible only when data is centralised and analysed, enable targeted improvement programmes that address root causes rather than symptoms.

What It Actually Costs

The cost of a supply chain control tower varies enormously depending on scope, scale, and technology choices. A useful framework distinguishes three cost tiers.

Basic visibility (Level 1). For a mid-sized Australian organisation with a relatively simple supply chain (domestic distribution, a handful of key suppliers, a single ERP system), a basic control tower capability can be built using existing BI tools (PowerBI, Tableau), data extracts from existing systems, and a small team to operate it. The technology cost might be modest, tens of thousands of dollars per year, with the primary investment being in the people and processes needed to define the KPIs, build the data feeds, maintain the dashboards, and act on the information. This is achievable for most Australian organisations and represents the best starting point.

Integrated platform (Levels 1-2). For larger organisations with more complex supply chains (multiple facilities, international sourcing, multiple logistics providers, multiple systems), a dedicated control tower platform that integrates data from multiple sources, provides configurable alerting, and supports multi-user access typically costs in the range of several hundred thousand dollars per year for the platform, plus implementation costs and ongoing operating costs (data management, system administration, user support). The implementation timeline is typically six to twelve months.

Advanced capability (Levels 3-4). For large, complex, global supply chains requiring real-time integration, scenario modelling, and autonomous decision support, the investment can run into millions of dollars per year, with multi-year implementation programmes. These solutions are typically justified only for organisations where the supply chain is of sufficient scale and complexity that the value from improved decision-making materially exceeds the cost of the platform.

The People Dimension

The most common mistake in control tower investment is treating it as a technology project. A control tower without people who know how to interpret the data, make decisions, and drive action is an expensive dashboard that nobody uses.

The operating model for a control tower function typically includes several roles. A control tower manager who owns the function and is accountable for its performance. Analysts who monitor the dashboards, triage alerts, and conduct analysis. Coordinators who manage exception responses, liaise with suppliers and logistics providers, and escalate issues. The exact team size depends on the scope of the control tower and the complexity of the supply chain, but even a basic Level 1 control tower requires dedicated attention from at least one or two people to be effective.

The skills required are a blend of supply chain operational knowledge (understanding what the data means in practical terms), analytical capability (ability to interpret data, identify patterns, and draw conclusions), communication skills (ability to escalate issues clearly and coordinate responses across functions), and systems literacy (comfort with the technology platform and data tools).

Many organisations underestimate the people investment required and end up with a well-built platform that is under-utilised because nobody has the time, the skills, or the accountability to operate it effectively.

When You Need One and When You Do Not

You probably need a control tower if: your supply chain spans multiple geographies, suppliers, and logistics providers; you experience frequent disruptions that are detected too late to manage effectively; different functions make supply chain decisions independently without visibility of each other's constraints; you have significant working capital tied up in inventory that exists because of uncertainty and lack of visibility; or you are managing contractual commitments (customer service levels, supplier delivery windows) that require proactive rather than reactive management.

You probably do not need a control tower if: your supply chain is relatively simple (few suppliers, domestic distribution, single facility); your existing systems already provide adequate visibility of supply chain status; your supply chain issues are caused by process failures or capability gaps that a control tower would not address; or you do not have the data foundations (accurate master data, reliable transactional data, system integration) on which a control tower depends.

You almost certainly should not invest in a control tower if: your ERP data is unreliable; your inventory records do not match physical stock; your supplier master data is incomplete; or your existing systems are not integrated. A control tower built on bad data will produce bad visibility and bad decisions. Fix the data first.

A Practical Starting Point

For most Australian organisations, the right starting point is not a control tower platform. It is a control tower practice. This means defining the key supply chain metrics that matter, building a simple consolidated view of those metrics from existing data sources, establishing a regular cadence of review (daily for operational metrics, weekly for performance trends), and assigning clear accountability for monitoring, escalating, and acting on the information.

This can be done with existing BI tools, existing data, and a small dedicated resource. It does not require a six-figure platform investment. And it delivers the most important benefit of a control tower immediately: a shared, consistent, current view of supply chain performance that enables better decisions.

Once this practice is established and delivering value, the organisation is in a much better position to evaluate whether a more sophisticated platform is justified, because it understands what visibility is valuable, what data is available, where the gaps are, and what decisions the technology needs to support.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace works with Australian organisations to design and implement supply chain visibility and control tower capabilities that are proportionate to the organisation's scale, complexity, and maturity.

Visibility assessment. We assess the current state of supply chain visibility across the organisation, identifying what data exists, where the gaps are, what decisions are being made with inadequate information, and where improved visibility would deliver the most value.

Control tower design. We design control tower operating models, including scope, KPIs, data architecture, technology requirements, people model, and governance. Our designs are grounded in what the organisation actually needs, not what the technology can theoretically do.

Technology selection. Where a platform investment is justified, we help organisations define requirements, evaluate options, and select the right technology for their needs and budget. We are technology-agnostic and have no commercial relationships with platform vendors.

Implementation support. We support control tower implementation from data integration through to operating model rollout, ensuring that the technology, the processes, and the people are all in place for the control tower to deliver sustained value.

Explore our Technology services →Explore our Resilience & Risk Management services →Explore our Planning & Operations services →Speak to an expert at Trace →

Getting Started

Before investing in a control tower, answer three questions. What supply chain decisions are currently being made with inadequate information? What data exists today that is not being used effectively? And who would be accountable for operating a control tower if you built one?

If you can answer those three questions clearly, you have the foundation for a productive conversation about what a control tower should look like for your organisation. If you cannot answer them, that is the work to do first, and it will deliver value regardless of whether a control tower investment follows.

The best control tower is not the most advanced one. It is the one that provides the right information to the right people at the right time to make better decisions. For many Australian organisations, that is simpler, cheaper, and more achievable than the technology vendors would have you believe.

‍

Supply Chain Strategy for Australian Aged Care Providers: The Overlooked Lever for Cost and Quality Improvement

Australian aged care is in the middle of the most significant period of reform in its history. The Royal Commission into Aged Care Quality and Safety, the new Aged Care Act, strengthened quality standards, the introduction of the star rating system, and ongoing workforce reforms have fundamentally reshaped the regulatory landscape. Providers are being held to higher standards of care, required to invest in workforce capability and staffing ratios, and expected to demonstrate transparency in how funding is spent.

At the same time, the financial position of the sector is under sustained pressure. The most recent StewartBrown Aged Care Financial Performance Survey has consistently shown that a significant proportion of residential aged care facilities operate at a loss. The funding model, while being reformed, has not kept pace with the cost increases driven by higher staffing requirements, wage growth, compliance investment, and input cost inflation. Providers are caught between rising expectations and constrained resources.

In this environment, most providers have focused their improvement efforts on clinical care, workforce, and governance, which is appropriate given the reform priorities. But there is a significant and largely untapped opportunity sitting in the supply chain: the procurement, logistics, inventory, and operational support functions that underpin the delivery of care but rarely receive strategic attention.

For a typical residential aged care provider, supply chain related costs, including food and catering, consumables, continence products, medical supplies, cleaning, linen, waste, maintenance, equipment, and the logistics of getting all of these to the right place at the right time, represent a material portion of operating expenditure outside of direct care labour. The efficiency with which these goods and services are procured, managed, and delivered directly affects both cost and the quality of the resident experience.

Why Aged Care Supply Chains Are Different

Aged care supply chains have characteristics that distinguish them from both hospital supply chains and commercial supply chains, and these differences matter for how improvement programmes are designed.

Distributed operating model. Most aged care providers operate across multiple facilities, often geographically dispersed, each with its own receiving, storage, and distribution arrangements. Unlike a hospital, which typically operates from a single large site with centralised stores, an aged care provider may have dozens of facilities ranging from 60 to 150 beds, each managing its own supply chain operations with limited infrastructure and limited specialist capability. This distributed model creates challenges for volume consolidation, contract compliance, inventory management, and operational consistency.

Resident-centred service model. The shift toward consumer-directed care and the emphasis on resident choice in the new standards means that supply chain decisions increasingly need to accommodate individual preferences, particularly in food and catering, personal care products, and lifestyle services. A supply chain model designed purely for efficiency, standardising everything to the lowest common denominator, may conflict with the resident experience objectives that are now central to quality ratings and regulatory compliance.

Workforce constraints. The aged care workforce is stretched. Care staff are focused on direct resident care, and the time available for supply chain tasks, receiving deliveries, checking stock, placing orders, managing waste, is limited. Any supply chain model that adds administrative burden to facility-level staff will fail. The supply chain needs to be designed to minimise the operational load on care staff, not to maximise procurement efficiency at the expense of front-line time.

Thin margins. The financial reality of aged care means that supply chain improvement cannot require large upfront capital investment. The solutions need to be proportionate, implementable within existing infrastructure, and capable of delivering returns quickly. Multi-year transformation programmes with deferred benefits are not viable for providers operating at or below breakeven.

Regulatory scrutiny. The quality and safety of supply chain related services, food quality and nutrition, infection control consumables, continence products, cleaning standards, and equipment maintenance, are all within scope of the Aged Care Quality Standards and the star rating assessment. A supply chain cost reduction programme that compromises the quality of any of these services is not just commercially unwise, it is a regulatory risk.

Where the Opportunity Sits

The supply chain improvement opportunity in aged care is concentrated in five areas.

Food and catering. Food is typically the single largest non-labour supply chain cost in residential aged care, and it has a direct and visible impact on the resident experience. The opportunity is not to spend less on food. It is to spend the food budget more effectively: reducing waste (which in many facilities runs at 25% to 40% of food prepared), improving menu planning to align purchasing with actual consumption, consolidating food procurement across the provider's network to achieve better pricing, standardising recipes and portion guidance to reduce variability between facilities, and improving the ordering and inventory management of perishable and dry goods. For providers with in-house catering, the cost structure of kitchen operations, including labour, equipment, utilities, and waste, should be assessed as a total system. For providers using contract catering, the contract terms, KPIs, and pricing structure should be reviewed against the market.

Consumables and continence. Medical consumables, wound care products, personal care items, and continence products are high-frequency, high-volume purchases that are often managed at the facility level without network-level contract arrangements. The opportunity is to consolidate purchasing under network contracts with preferred suppliers, standardise product ranges where clinically appropriate, and implement automated replenishment systems that reduce the ordering burden on care staff. Continence products in particular represent a significant spend category where product selection, sizing protocols, and usage management can deliver material savings without affecting resident comfort or clinical outcomes.

Cleaning and laundry. Whether delivered in-house or outsourced, cleaning and laundry services represent a consistent cost that is rarely benchmarked or actively managed. For providers with outsourced cleaning contracts, the opportunity is contract review, market testing, and performance management. For providers with in-house cleaning, the opportunity is in product standardisation, chemical management, equipment investment, and workforce scheduling. Linen management, whether through an in-house laundry, a linen hire service, or a hybrid model, is another category where the total cost, including linen loss, replacement, laundering, and distribution, is rarely calculated and often higher than it needs to be.

Maintenance, equipment, and facilities. Aged care facilities require ongoing maintenance of buildings, grounds, equipment, and specialist systems (nurse call, fire safety, heating and cooling, kitchen equipment, laundry equipment). The maintenance supply chain, including the procurement of trades, parts, and materials, is typically managed reactively and locally. Establishing preferred contractor panels, implementing planned preventive maintenance programmes, and consolidating equipment purchasing and maintenance contracts across the network can reduce cost and improve asset reliability.

Procurement process and supplier management. Many aged care providers do not have a dedicated procurement function. Purchasing decisions are made by facility managers, care managers, catering staff, and maintenance coordinators, each making independent decisions within their domain. The result is fragmented purchasing, inconsistent pricing, limited supplier management, and minimal spend visibility. Establishing basic procurement governance, a preferred supplier programme, network-level contracts for the highest-value categories, and simple spend reporting does not require a large procurement team. It requires a structured approach and clear accountability.

A Practical Approach to Improvement

Given the operational reality of aged care, the supply chain improvement approach needs to be practical, proportionate, and sequenced to deliver early value.

Phase 1: Visibility. Before anything else, the provider needs to understand what it spends, with whom, across which categories, and at which facilities. This requires extracting and analysing purchasing data from the finance system, categorising it into a meaningful spend taxonomy, and producing a baseline view of the supply chain cost structure. For most providers, this analysis reveals immediate opportunities: duplicate suppliers, pricing inconsistencies between facilities, categories with no active contract, and a long tail of ad-hoc purchases at retail or near-retail prices.

Phase 2: Quick wins. Based on the spend analysis, identify the categories where consolidation, renegotiation, or switching to a preferred supplier arrangement can deliver savings within three to six months. Typical quick-win categories include continence products, cleaning chemicals, office supplies, food staples, and maintenance trades. These categories are characterised by fragmented purchasing, available contract options (through group purchasing organisations, cooperative buying groups, or direct supplier negotiation), and limited clinical complexity in the product selection.

Phase 3: Category strategies. For the three to five highest-value categories, develop structured category strategies that address not just pricing but the total cost of ownership: product specification, usage management, waste reduction, inventory optimisation, and supplier performance. Food and catering, continence and medical consumables, and cleaning and linen are typically the priority categories. These strategies take longer to develop and implement but deliver the most sustainable and significant savings.

Phase 4: Operating model. As the provider's supply chain maturity develops, the question shifts from "how do we buy things cheaper?" to "how should our supply chain operate?" This includes decisions about the degree of centralisation (what should be managed centrally versus at the facility level), the procurement governance model, the role of technology (ordering systems, inventory management, spend analytics), the distribution model (direct delivery to facilities versus hub-and-spoke), and the capability required to sustain the improvement.

The Role of Group Purchasing and Cooperative Buying

Many aged care providers participate in group purchasing organisations (GPOs) or cooperative buying arrangements that aggregate volume across multiple providers to negotiate better pricing with suppliers. These arrangements can deliver genuine value, particularly for commodity categories where volume drives price.

However, group purchasing is not a substitute for supply chain management. The contract price negotiated by the GPO is only valuable if the provider's facilities are actually purchasing through those contracts, if compliance is monitored, and if the product range on the contract matches what the facilities need. Many providers participate in GPO arrangements but achieve only a fraction of the potential benefit because facility-level purchasing compliance is low, because the GPO product range does not cover all categories, or because the GPO pricing is not benchmarked against what the provider could achieve through direct negotiation in categories where their own volume is significant.

The most effective approach is to use GPO arrangements where they offer genuine value, typically in commodity and standard product categories, while developing direct supplier relationships and network-level contracts in the categories where the provider's specific requirements, volume, or quality expectations warrant a tailored approach.

Technology: What Helps and What Doesn't

The aged care sector has historically under-invested in supply chain technology, and the temptation to solve supply chain problems with a technology purchase is strong. A word of caution: technology is an enabler, not a solution. An ordering system implemented on top of fragmented purchasing practices and undefined product catalogues will automate the mess, not fix it. A spend analytics platform without someone to analyse the data and act on the insights is an unused subscription.

The technology investments that deliver the most value in aged care supply chain are relatively simple. A clean, maintained product catalogue that facility staff can order from, with pricing pre-negotiated and products pre-approved, eliminates the most common source of procurement leakage. An automated replenishment system for high-frequency consumables, based on par levels and consumption data, reduces the ordering burden on care staff and prevents both stockouts and overstocking. A basic spend reporting dashboard that shows purchasing by category, supplier, and facility gives the procurement function (or whoever is accountable for supply chain costs) the visibility needed to identify issues and track improvement.

More advanced technology, such as integrated procurement-to-pay platforms, electronic ordering with suppliers, or predictive demand analytics, may be appropriate for larger providers with the scale and maturity to benefit from them. But for most aged care providers, getting the basics right, clean data, consistent processes, and simple tools, will deliver the majority of the available value.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace works with aged care providers across Australia to design and implement supply chain improvement programmes that are practical, proportionate, and focused on freeing resources for resident care.

Supply chain diagnostic. We conduct rapid assessments of aged care supply chain operations, covering procurement, inventory, food and catering, consumables, cleaning, linen, waste, and maintenance. The diagnostic quantifies the cost base, identifies the savings opportunities, and produces a prioritised improvement roadmap.

Procurement and category management. We develop and execute category strategies for priority aged care spend categories, grounded in spend analysis, market intelligence, and operational engagement with facility teams. We manage sourcing processes from requirements definition through to contract award.

Operational efficiency. We review and redesign facility-level supply chain operations, including ordering processes, delivery and receiving, storage and inventory management, and waste management, with a focus on reducing the operational burden on care staff.

Operating model design. We help providers design the right supply chain operating model for their scale and structure, including the balance between central and facility-level management, procurement governance, technology requirements, and the capability needed to sustain improvement.

Explore our Health & Aged Care sector expertise →Explore our Procurement services →Speak to an expert at Trace →

Getting Started

If you are an aged care provider operating under margin pressure and looking for levers beyond workforce and funding, the supply chain is where to look. The starting point is a spend analysis. Understand what you spend, categorise it, and identify where the concentration sits. That single exercise will reveal opportunities that justify everything that follows.

The aged care sector cannot reform its way out of financial pressure without addressing operational efficiency. Clinical care, workforce investment, and governance improvement are essential. But so is ensuring that every dollar not spent on direct care is being spent as effectively as possible. That is a supply chain question, and it deserves a supply chain answer.

Building Supply Chain Capability: Why Talent Is Now the Constraint for Australian Organisations

There is no shortage of conversations about supply chain risk in Australian boardrooms. Disruption, geopolitics, cyber threats, climate events, cost inflation. These are the risks that make it onto the corporate risk register and into the strategy deck. But the risk that is quietly doing the most damage to operational performance, transformation programmes, and strategic execution across Australian supply chains is one that rarely gets the same airtime: the inability to attract, develop, and retain the people needed to run increasingly complex supply chain and procurement functions.

This is not a new problem. Supply chain and procurement have been on skills shortage lists in Australia for years. But the nature of the problem has shifted. It is no longer just a recruitment challenge. It is a capability constraint that is limiting what organisations can deliver, how fast they can transform, and whether they can sustain the improvements they make.

The Shape of the Problem

The supply chain and procurement talent shortage in Australia has several dimensions, and they compound each other.

The pipeline is thin. Fewer graduates are entering supply chain and procurement career paths relative to the demand for these roles. While university programmes in supply chain management exist, they produce a fraction of the volume needed to replace the experienced professionals leaving the workforce, let alone to fill the new roles being created as supply chains become more complex and more strategically important. The pathway into procurement is particularly narrow. Many procurement professionals in Australia did not study procurement. They arrived from adjacent functions, finance, operations, commercial, legal, and learned procurement on the job. That organic pipeline has slowed as the roles have become more specialised and the expectations on procurement professionals have increased.

The mid-tier is hollowed out. One of the most consistent observations across Australian supply chain and procurement functions is the gap between senior leaders and junior staff. The experienced managers and senior analysts who should be carrying the operational load, running categories, managing supplier relationships, leading improvement projects, and coaching the next generation, are in desperately short supply. Many have been promoted into leadership roles too quickly, leaving their previous positions unfilled. Others have moved to consulting, technology vendors, or different industries where the salary and progression opportunities are better. The result is a structural gap in the middle of most supply chain and procurement functions, with senior leaders stretched thin and junior staff who do not yet have the experience to operate independently.

The skills required have changed. The supply chain and procurement professional of 2026 needs a fundamentally different skill set than the one required a decade ago. Data literacy, systems thinking, commercial acumen, stakeholder management, sustainability knowledge, technology fluency, and the ability to operate across functions and geographies are now baseline expectations. The traditional skill set of category knowledge, negotiation, and process management remains necessary but is no longer sufficient. Many experienced professionals who are technically strong in the traditional skill set have not developed the analytical, digital, and strategic capabilities that modern supply chain and procurement roles demand.

The competition for talent is intense and structural. Supply chain and procurement professionals with the right combination of skills are being pursued by every sector simultaneously. Mining, infrastructure, government, defence, FMCG, retail, health, and technology are all competing for the same limited pool. Category managers, strategic sourcing managers, supply chain planners, and logistics professionals are among the hardest roles to fill in Australia. Hays salary data for FY25-26 shows strategic sourcing managers in Melbourne and Perth commanding up to $210,000, and category managers in Perth reaching $200,000, reflecting the scarcity premium that employers are paying for experienced talent.

Why This Matters Strategically

A supply chain or procurement function that cannot attract and retain capable people cannot do any of the things that boards and executive teams are asking it to do. It cannot run effective sourcing processes. It cannot manage supplier performance. It cannot deliver transformation programmes. It cannot implement new systems. It cannot reduce cost-to-serve. It cannot build Scope 3 reporting capability. It cannot support major capital projects. It cannot do any of these things consistently, at scale, and to the standard required.

What typically happens instead is that organisations rely on a small number of overloaded senior people to carry an unsustainable workload, supplemented by junior staff who are not yet ready and external consultants who plug gaps but do not build lasting internal capability. The senior people burn out or leave. The junior staff do not develop fast enough because nobody has time to coach them. The consultants deliver their engagement and walk away, leaving the organisation no more capable than it was before. The cycle repeats.

This pattern is not unique to supply chain and procurement, but it is particularly damaging in these functions because the work is cumulative. The value of a well-managed supplier relationship, a well-run category programme, or a well-designed supply chain operating model accrues over time. It requires continuity. When the people change every 12 to 18 months, the institutional knowledge leaves with them, and the organisation starts again from a position that is often worse than where it began, because the suppliers, the systems, and the stakeholders have all been disrupted by the turnover.

What Organisations Get Wrong

Several common responses to the talent shortage make the problem worse rather than better.

Recruiting for experience rather than capability. Many organisations define their hiring criteria in terms of years of experience and specific industry background, which narrows the candidate pool to a handful of people and ensures that every employer is competing for exactly the same individuals. The organisations that are hiring well are defining roles in terms of the capabilities and outcomes they need, and are willing to invest in developing people who have the right foundational skills but may come from adjacent industries or functions.

Under-investing in development. When workloads are heavy and teams are stretched, training and development are the first things to be cut. This is exactly the wrong response. The organisations that retain their best people are the ones that invest in their growth, through structured development programmes, external training, mentoring, stretch assignments, and clear progression pathways. The cost of developing an existing team member is almost always less than the cost of replacing them.

Treating consulting as a substitute for capability. Engaging consultants to deliver a specific project is appropriate and often necessary. Engaging consultants as a permanent substitute for building internal capability is not. The test is whether the organisation is more capable after the consultants leave than it was before they arrived. If the answer is no, the engagement model is wrong. The best consulting engagements are designed to build capability, not to replace it.

Ignoring the operating model. Many supply chain and procurement talent problems are actually operating model problems. If the function is poorly structured, if roles are unclear, if governance is weak, if technology is inadequate, if the function is under-resourced relative to its mandate, then even talented people will struggle to be effective and will eventually leave for organisations where they can do their best work. Fixing the operating model is often a prerequisite for fixing the talent problem.

Failing to make the function attractive. Supply chain and procurement are competing for talent against finance, consulting, technology, and other functions that are often perceived as more prestigious, better compensated, and offering clearer progression. Organisations that want to attract top talent into these functions need to make a compelling case: interesting work, genuine impact, executive visibility, competitive compensation, and a culture that values and develops its people.

What Good Looks Like

Organisations that are managing the talent challenge well share several characteristics.

They treat workforce planning as a strategic exercise, not a reactive one. They have a clear view of the capabilities they need, the gaps they have, the pipeline they are building, and the timeline over which they expect those gaps to close. This is not a spreadsheet exercise done once a year. It is an ongoing strategic conversation that sits alongside business planning and investment planning.

They invest in structured development. They have defined competency frameworks for supply chain and procurement roles, linked to clear progression pathways. They invest in training, coaching, and mentoring. They create opportunities for people to develop through stretch assignments, cross-functional projects, and exposure to senior stakeholders. They measure development outcomes and hold leaders accountable for growing their teams.

They build a bench, not just a team. They deliberately create more capability than they need today, so that when someone leaves, gets promoted, or takes on a new project, the function does not collapse. This requires a mindset shift from "we can't afford to have spare capacity" to "we can't afford not to." The cost of carrying one additional capable person is trivial compared to the cost of a critical role sitting vacant for six months.

They use consultants deliberately. When they engage external support, they design the engagement to build capability. They co-staff projects with internal people who are developing into the roles the consultants are currently filling. They require knowledge transfer as a contractual deliverable. They measure success not just by what the project delivers, but by what the internal team can do independently afterwards.

They make supply chain and procurement visible and valued. The function has executive sponsorship. Its leaders sit at the table. Its impact is measured and communicated. The organisation recognises that supply chain and procurement are not back-office cost centres but strategic functions that directly influence cost, revenue, risk, and competitive positioning. This visibility attracts talent because capable people want to work where they can make a difference.

The Consulting Model Matters

This talent challenge has direct implications for how organisations engage with consulting firms. The traditional consulting model, where a firm deploys a team of junior consultants supervised by a partner, has significant limitations in this context.

If the objective is to build lasting capability, the consulting team needs to be senior enough to transfer genuine expertise, not just deliver a workstream. A team of analysts running a category management programme under the supervision of a partner who appears fortnightly does not build procurement capability in the client organisation. A senior practitioner working alongside the client's category manager, teaching them the methodology while delivering the outcome together, does.

This is why the staffing model of the consulting firm matters. Firms that operate a traditional pyramid, with a large base of graduates and junior consultants and a small number of senior people, are structurally incentivised to deploy junior resources. Firms that operate with a deliberately senior-heavy model can deploy experienced practitioners who are genuinely capable of coaching, mentoring, and transferring skills while delivering the work.

The question for any organisation engaging a supply chain or procurement consultant is not just "can they do the work?" It is "will my team be better at this after they leave than before they arrived?" If the answer to the second question is no, the engagement may solve the immediate problem but will not address the underlying capability constraint.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace was founded on the principle that consulting should leave organisations more capable, not more dependent. Our deliberately senior-heavy staffing model means that the people who work alongside your team are experienced practitioners who can coach, mentor, and develop your people while delivering the project outcomes you need.

Supply chain and procurement operating model design. We design operating models that are fit for purpose, clearly structured, and aligned to the organisation's strategy and capability maturity. This includes role design, governance, capability frameworks, and the technology and process foundations that allow the function to perform.

Capability assessment and development planning. We assess the current capability of supply chain and procurement teams against defined competency frameworks, identify gaps, and design development programmes that close them over a realistic timeline.

Co-delivery and knowledge transfer. Our engagements are designed so that Trace consultants work alongside your team, not in place of them. We co-staff projects, run workshops, conduct coaching sessions, and build the tools, templates, and processes that your team will use independently after we leave.

Workforce planning for supply chain and procurement. We help organisations build workforce plans for their supply chain and procurement functions, including demand modelling, capability gap analysis, recruitment strategy, and development pipeline planning.

Explore our Organisational Design services →Explore our Workforce Planning services →Speak to an expert at Trace →

Getting Started

If your supply chain or procurement function is struggling to attract, retain, or develop the talent it needs, the starting point is an honest assessment of why. Is it a compensation problem? A development problem? An operating model problem? A visibility problem? Usually it is several of these at once, and they need to be addressed as a system, not in isolation.

The organisations that will perform best over the next five years in supply chain and procurement are not necessarily the ones with the biggest budgets or the most advanced technology. They are the ones with the deepest bench of capable, experienced, committed people. In a market where talent is the binding constraint, building that bench is the most important investment a supply chain or procurement leader can make.