ICT procurement: it’s not about price, it’s about decisions
Featured as a speaker at The Procurement, Milan — 19 February 2026
Article contents
Introduction
For years, procurement has been measured almost exclusively on savings achieved. It was a clear, measurable metric, defensible in any budget meeting. And for certain types of purchase, it worked.
In ICT, however, things have become more complicated.
When a decision lasts years, the question changes
A three-year software contract, a server infrastructure, a security platform: these choices don’t exhaust their effects in the quarter they’re signed. They introduce technological dependencies, operational constraints, and levels of risk that will remain on the table for years.
In this context, continuing to measure procurement value solely on saving is like judging a surgeon by the cost of the scalpel.
The question stops being “how much did we save today?” and becomes “will this decision hold tomorrow?”
The real metric isn’t how much you saved. It’s how much you avoided getting wrong.
The highest risk in ICT isn’t spending a little more. It’s making the wrong decision and realising it when it’s too late to turn back.
The cybersecurity case: when the constraint wasn’t in the price
I once managed the procurement of a cybersecurity solution. The apparent scope was straightforward: compare proposals, negotiate terms, close the contract.
Looking at the initial documentation, however, I noticed that one of the available options hadn’t been considered — an open-source solution that on paper appeared equivalent, at significantly lower cost.
I pushed to dig deeper. Not the financial side: the context. Why hadn’t that solution been considered? What constraints existed? What was being taken for granted?
The deeper analysis surfaced something that hadn’t been on the table: company policy required certain solutions to be on-premise, not in the cloud. That changed everything. Some of the options under evaluation weren’t compatible with the organisation’s actual requirements. Others, initially dismissed, suddenly became relevant.
The final decision wasn’t to choose the cheapest software. It was to bring the choice back within the organisation’s real constraints.
The value generated wasn’t financial. It was avoiding the adoption of a solution incompatible with the company’s operational and security rules — and all the problems that would have followed.
Data helps. But it doesn’t decide.
The same mechanism plays out differently in hardware infrastructure procurement.
Consider two generations of servers: one more recent, one cheaper upfront. If you look only at the initial price, the choice is obvious. But when scalability, energy consumption, lifecycle, and operational complexity come into play — the picture shifts.
In environments with variable workloads or short refresh cycles, the cheaper server today can become the most expensive over time: more interventions, more operational constraints, earlier obsolescence than expected. The apparently more expensive option can be the more stable choice.
Data is essential here. But it isn’t enough on its own.
A company with variable workloads and rapid growth needs will read those same numbers differently from an organisation with stable, predictable systems. Data tells you what’s possible. Context tells you what’s right for that specific organisation at that specific moment.
Procurement doesn’t choose which server costs less. It chooses which decision creates fewer problems over the next three years. That’s a substantial difference. Yet most companies still measure procurement on saving — and then wonder about the problems that follow.
From negotiator to orchestrator
What these two cases have in common is a shift in role.
The ICT buyer is no longer — or shouldn’t be — someone who receives a request and negotiates the price. The work starts earlier: clarifying the real requirements, surfacing constraints the organisation hasn’t yet identified, comparing scenarios that look beyond the immediate cost.
When management asks “what’s the best choice?”, the useful answer isn’t a price. It’s a scenario.
This shift — from selecting suppliers to designing decisions — changes the nature of the function. Procurement stops being a support function and becomes an integral part of the organisation’s decision-making process.
Not because it brings more data. But because it helps the organisation read that data correctly, within the right context.
Savings are measured in the quarter. A wrong decision is paid for over years. The difference between the two is exactly where procurement can make a difference — or fail to.
Savings are measured in the quarter. A wrong decision is paid for over years. The difference between the two is exactly where procurement can make a difference — or fail to.
Further reading
- When a KPI lies: the hidden side of procurement metrics
- McKinsey — Strategic procurement in the cloud: beyond cost management
ICT Procurement Beyond Saving: What Does It Really Mean?
It means evaluating technology decisions not just on immediate savings, but on operational consequences, risks, and long-term stability. A contract signed today can create dependencies or hidden costs that last for years.
How does the ICT buyer’s role change in strategic decisions?
ICT buyer doesn’t just negotiate price: they clarify real requirements, surface technical and operational constraints that are often left unstated, and help the organisation compare scenarios that go beyond the initial cost. They become an orchestrator of the decision, not merely a negotiator.
Why isn’t data enough to decide in ICT procurement?
Data shows what’s possible, but not what’s right for that specific organisation. Context — structure, objectives, operational constraints — changes how the same numbers must be read and translated into a choice.
Share this article