How higher education's procurement leaders are navigating complexity, technology disruption, and the push for strategic relevance

Carl Zangerl, Northeastern University

What does the current state of higher education look like? If you ask the chief procurement officers who gathered at this year's NAEP Annual Conference for a day-long Think Tank, the answer might come in the form of a Star Wars character. The session opened with exactly that icebreaker — which character best represents higher education today, and which one holds the most promise for the future? The question was lighthearted, but the conversation it sparked was anything but. It set the tone for a day of candid, peer-to-peer dialogue that went deep on the pressures, paradoxes, and possibilities shaping procurement leadership in higher education right now.

Organized by Jacki Ahern, Chair of the NAEP Annual Planning Committee, and facilitated by Ted Johnson, with Heather Vinograd keeping the day anchored and on track, the Think Tank brought together approximately 64 CPOs and senior procurement leaders seated at eight mixed tables. Participants drew numbers to determine their seats — a deliberate design choice intended to blend perspectives across institution types, regions, and experience levels rather than defaulting to comfortable familiarity. The result was a room full of frank conversation, shared frustration, and, ultimately, collective insight.

The University Has Outgrown Its Procurement Model

The first theme that surfaced across nearly every table was deceptively simple: the modern university has become dramatically more complex, and procurement structures have not kept pace. Participants pointed to the expanding scope of what universities now manage, from auxiliary enterprises and NIL (Name, Image, and Likeness) agreements to increasingly sophisticated technology ecosystems. This is all evidence of an outdated operating model.

"Change in the complexity of the modern university" was how one group framed it, listing traffic  volume, broadening scope, and technology as the three primary drivers. The challenge, they concluded, is not simply adding capacity — it is orchestrating process, mindset, and tools simultaneously while achieving effective integration across the organization. Procurement cannot solve complexity through harder work alone. It requires structural change.

Technology Is Both the Opportunity and the Problem

If there was one topic that generated both excitement and anxiety in equal measure, it was technology — and specifically, artificial intelligence. Across the flip charts, a consistent tension emerged. Institutions recognize the transformative potential of AI, yet the foundational conditions required to deploy it responsibly are often not in place.

One table put it bluntly: human knowledge is not written or in a technology-consumable format. Procurement teams carry enormous institutional memory — vendor relationships, risk context, demand patterns, board-level commitments — that lives in people's heads rather than in systems. How to address this gap? AI tools capable of analyzing institutional documents, such as board resolutions, contracts, historical purchasing data, to identify and anticipate demand.

Another group centered their analysis on the proliferation and duplication of tools across institutions. With multiple platforms (ERP, procurement systems, document management tools) that don't communicate with each other, and with technology decisions often made without central IT or data governance coordination, procurement leaders find themselves managing a fragmented ecosystem rather than a coherent one. The aspiration that emerged: AI as an orchestration layer — not just another tool, but a capability that removes the need for manual integration and allows systems, and people, to work in concert.

At the same time, participants were clear-eyed about what must not be automated away. Human judgment in supplier relationships, ethical trade-offs, and institutional values alignment were consistently cited as irreducibly human responsibilities. Tell AI what the parameters are, but the parameters themselves must come from people who understand context, culture, and consequence.

Supply Chain Volatility Is Not Stabilizing — It Is Structural

Global supply chain disruption was a third major theme, and the conversation here moved well beyond COVID-era disruptions. Participants described the current environment as a VUCA "pipe organ" — multiple variables shifting simultaneously, each with its own timing and amplitude. The problem is not just volatility; it is that procurement is expected to manage it without adequate upstream visibility.

Several groups highlighted the need for improved Tier 1, 2, and 3 supply chain visibility as a prerequisite for proactive management rather than reactive response. One group specifically called out key spend categories — healthcare, IT, food service — as areas where supply chain risk is most acute and where the shift from reactive to proactive management would generate the most institutional value.

The conversation also surfaced a collaborative opportunity: could higher education institutions collectively address supply chain friction through shared standards, coordinated supplier onboarding, and industry-wide risk information sharing? One group invoked the spirit of an "XPRIZE-style challenge" by reducing legislative friction, accelerating supplier information sharing, and building the infrastructure for global trade relationships that currently depends on slow, institution-by-institution negotiation. The idea of a trade exchange model, built for speed and collective benefit rather than individual institutional advantage, generated significant interest.

The Strategic Value Story Remains Unfinished

Across several tables, a recurring frustration surfaced: procurement is doing strategic work, but the institution doesn't always see it that way. Participants described being brought in too late, absorbing risk that originated upstream, and spending disproportionate time on transactional work that crowds out higher-value activity.

The path forward, as the room saw it, requires procurement to do two things simultaneously: build the internal credibility that comes from data-driven performance evidence, and develop the storytelling capabilities needed to make that value visible to senior leadership. Telling the story was not a soft skill afterthought — it was identified as a genuine strategic gap, alongside more technical capabilities like contract lifecycle management, vendor risk evaluation, and AI-assisted bid analysis.

One group noted that before procurement can be a strategic partner, it must be a reliable operational one. Guided digital workflows, automated checklists, AI-supported document review are not ends in themselves; they create the capacity for procurement leaders to focus on work that actually moves the institution forward.

Workforce, Talent, and the Human Side of Transformation

No discussion of technology adoption is complete without acknowledging the human dimension. Generational differences in how staff approach new tools, the challenge of identifying and closing skill gaps, and the need for mindset shifts alongside process changes were recurring discussion threads throughout the day.

One group's insight captured it well: the gap is not just in skill sets — it is in identifying the mindset needed to operate in an environment of continuous transformation. Training people to use tools is a basic step. Helping people see themselves as strategic contributors in a rapidly changing landscape is something procurement leaders themselves must model from the top.

Automation through AI — encompassing e-procurement platforms, chatbots, contract management, and data centralization — was seen as both a relief valve for overwhelmed teams and a source of legitimate anxiety. Several groups pointed to the importance of managing the transition carefully. This involves building staff confidence, demonstrating quick wins, and framing AI adoption not as replacement but as the removal of low-value work that makes higher-value work possible.

What Comes Next

The Think Tank did not end with a resolution. Participants left with a shared conviction that procurement in higher education is at an inflection point. The complexity is real, the technology is available, and the strategic opportunity is visible. What remains is the organizational will to close the gap between procurement's current role and what can be achieved in the future.

The conversations from this day — candid, cross-institutional, and grounded in the real pressures procurement leaders face — offer a useful map for that journey. The galaxy is complicated. But the Force, it turns out, may well be in the supply chain.

The CPO Think Tank was a featured session at the NAEP EPIC, the Annual Conference, convened to surface strategic insights from chief procurement officers and senior procurement leaders across higher education. Participants represented a broad range of institution types and geographic regions.

What's Next - CPO Mastermind Cohorts