The problem usually starts with good intentions.
A delivery comes in slightly off.
Nothing catastrophic—but not quite right.
Procurement tightens the specs.
The next issue appears.
Another clause is added.
Another page goes into the supplier agreement.
Over time, documents get thicker.
Requirements get more detailed.
Contracts become harder to read.
And yet—somehow—results don’t improve.
The question procurement leaders rarely ask out loud is the most important one:
If the specs are clear, why does execution still vary?
When More Detail Doesn’t Mean More Control
In many organizations, over-specification feels like the responsible thing to do.
When something goes wrong, the instinct is to document it:
- Add tolerances
- Add exceptions
- Add penalties
- Add approvals
On paper, everything looks airtight.
But on the ground, the same problems keep appearing—just in different forms.
That’s because documentation defines what should happen.
It doesn’t control how work actually gets done.
And procurement lives or dies in the “how.”
The Hard Truth: You Can’t Document Your Way Out of Weak Execution
Here’s the uncomfortable reality most procurement teams eventually face:
Inconsistent results don’t come from unclear requirements.
They come from unstable execution environments.
Common signs include:
- High staff turnover on the supplier side
- Work done differently depending on who’s present
- Processes that exist on paper but not in habit
- Quality checks that correct mistakes instead of preventing them
When execution changes daily, no amount of documentation can create consistency.
Specs become a safety net—but never a solution.
Why Over-Specification Becomes a Trap
Ironically, the more procurement relies on documentation, the more fragile the system becomes.
Why?
- Suppliers focus on compliance, not craft
- Teams work to avoid penalties, not improve process
- Accountability shifts from execution to explanation
The result is a cycle procurement knows too well:
- Variance happens
- Specs expand
- Compliance increases
- Results stay the same
Procurement ends up managing paper instead of performance.
What High-Performing Procurement Teams Do Instead
At some point, experienced procurement leaders change the question they’re asking.
They stop asking:
“Is this spec detailed enough?”
And start asking:
“Is this execution environment stable enough to repeat itself?”
That shift is subtle—but powerful.
Instead of focusing only on documentation, they evaluate:
- Workforce stability
- Task repetition and clarity
- How quality is embedded in daily work
- Whether performance depends on supervision or routine
They understand something critical:
Consistency is a systems outcome, not a documentation outcome.
When Fewer Specs Started Producing Better Results
We experienced this shift after years of tightening requirements with little return.
Eventually, we worked with a supplier whose documentation wasn’t unusually detailed—but whose execution was remarkably consistent.
The first delivery met expectations.
So did the second.
And the third.
No clarifications needed.
No exceptions invoked.
No explanations required.
That’s when it became clear:
This supplier didn’t rely on specs to perform well.
They relied on habitual execution.
Why This Supplier Didn’t Need Micromanagement
Over time, the difference became obvious.
Work was done by the same people, every day.
Tasks followed the same sequence.
Quality checks were part of the workflow—not a final gate.
People weren’t interpreting documents.
They were repeating practiced routines.
Execution didn’t depend on who was supervising that day.
It depended on how the system was built.
The Detail That Explained the Stability
Only later did we learn something that reframed the entire experience.
Much of the production team consisted of Persons with Disabilities, employed through a structured livelihood program.
This wasn’t emphasized in meetings.
It wasn’t used as a selling point.
It was simply how the workforce was organized.
And suddenly, the consistency made sense.
Why Stable Livelihoods Reduce the Need for Over-Specification
Here’s the connection procurement teams rarely get to observe directly.
When people rely on work for long-term livelihood:
- Turnover drops
- Skill mastery increases
- Process adherence becomes natural
- Pride shifts from compliance to execution
PWD artisans weren’t rotating out.
They weren’t treating tasks as temporary.
They weren’t improvising under pressure.
They were protecting the routine—because the routine protected their work.
That kind of stability does more for consistency than any clause ever could.
Why This Isn’t a CSR Argument
It’s important to be clear.
We didn’t reduce specs because of social impact.
We reduced specs because execution stopped varying.
The livelihood model didn’t replace quality systems.
It strengthened them.
This wasn’t charity improving outcomes.
It was structural stability eliminating variance.
For procurement, that distinction matters.
The Outcome Procurement Actually Wants
As execution stabilized, several things happened naturally:
- Specs got shorter
- Exceptions became rare
- Escalations dropped
- Internal trust improved
Procurement stopped acting as an enforcer and returned to being a strategist.
And behind that performance:
- Workers had stable income
- Skills deepened
- Livelihoods became sustainable through repeat demand
Impact didn’t compete with procurement goals.
It reinforced them.
What This Means for Procurement Leaders
If you’re responsible for sourcing, here’s the takeaway:
Stop assuming inconsistency means unclear specs.
Start investigating execution environments.
Ask suppliers:
- How stable is your workforce?
- How is quality practiced daily—not audited monthly?
- What happens when volume increases?
- Does performance rely on documents or discipline?
Suppliers with stable people tend to need fewer rules.
Suppliers with unstable systems need endless documentation.
Why Fewer Specs Can Be a Sign of Better Procurement
Great procurement isn’t about controlling every detail.
It’s about choosing partners whose systems don’t require control.
When execution is stable:
- Specs become guardrails, not crutches
- Quality becomes habit, not exception
- Procurement gains leverage through trust
And sometimes, the strongest systems are built in places procurement wasn’t trained to look.
Not because of emotion.
But because of structure.
The Procurement Decision That Simplifies Everything
The best suppliers don’t need to be managed aggressively.
They don’t need constant clarification.
They don’t need repeated enforcement.
They perform.
And when performance is driven by stable systems and stable livelihoods, procurement finally gets what it’s been chasing all along:
Consistency—without complication.
Because in the end, you don’t win procurement by writing better specs.
You win it by choosing execution environments that don’t need them.
Hands in Harmony 
Leave a comment