A growing mismatch between what CIOs expect and what suppliers deliver — from skills and continuity to proactivity — is forcing organisations to embed tougher governance, named‑resource contracts and co‑creation to turn vendors from a risk into a competitive advantage.
The supplier relationship is no longer a back‑office courtesy: it is a strategic asset that can determine whether an organisation meets its digital ambitions or merely pays for incremental maintenance. A feature in CIO.com lays bare the gap between what chief information officers expect from suppliers and what they sometimes receive — and the consequences can be more than irritation. When vendors fall short on skills, continuity or proactivity, projects stall, costs rise and trust erodes.
Skills shortfalls are the most visible fault line. “The vendor often sends the most experienced sales manager to the sales phase, while at the project phase they send a less experienced person,” Francesco Ciocia, head of IT and digital transformation at Italian veterinary services company Ca’ Zampa, told CIO.com. That dynamic — the glossy pitch followed by a mediocre operational handover — is a recurring complaint among buyers and is often the moment when a strategic relationship becomes transactional.
Several analyses point to the same root causes and common fixes. Computerworld has long warned of vendors deploying their “A team” to win business then handing delivery to a weaker “B team,” and advises buyers to negotiate rights to approve proposed personnel and to embed performance clauses into contracts. The Estii guide on sales‑to‑delivery handover amplifies the practical mechanics: early involvement of delivery teams in the bidding process, standardised handover artefacts and collaborative kickoff meetings reduce information loss and stop customers feeling “handed over to newbies.” These measures preserve the credibility that was built in procurement and reduce rework further down the line.
The demand side has also shifted. According to McKinsey’s research, today’s CIOs expect providers to bring not just technical execution but talent, innovation and a clear focus on business outcomes. Buyers are reallocating budgets towards next‑generation services, favouring specialist or niche providers for scarce capabilities rather than relying on monolithic suppliers for everything. That trend reinforces the need for suppliers to demonstrate demonstrable skills and to co‑create solutions rather than merely sell off‑the‑shelf wares.
Trust and governance are the scaffolding that hold those relationships together. InformationWeek stresses that trust must be paired with verification: strong vendor partnerships are founded on clear communication, mutual accountability and structured governance. That means assessing vendors on cultural fit, financial viability and responsiveness as well as technical ability, and creating governance forums that can rapidly resolve issues and align suppliers with shifting business priorities.
The business reality behind these prescriptions is sometimes untidy. Consolidation in the supplier market, changing personnel and shifting roadmaps can all threaten continuity. BCG’s work on team innovation recommends mirrored, cross‑functional teams and shared roadmaps that maintain technical continuity through product launch and beyond. When sales, product and delivery are incentivised separately, knowledge and commitment can be lost at the handover; aligning incentives and creating a “one‑team” mentality keeps senior experts engaged throughout the lifecycle.
Contracts remain a blunt but necessary instrument. Practical contractual levers include rights to review and approve delivery personnel, explicit staff continuity commitments, notice periods and transition assistance for personnel changes, and measurable service levels tied to payment or remediation. Performance‑based clauses and defined outcomes — not just time and materials — encourage suppliers to remain invested in success. Computerworld and procurement practitioners alike recommend embedding these provisions early in negotiations rather than as afterthoughts.
But legal remedies are only one part of the answer. CIOs must exercise clear leadership in coordinating multiple suppliers, setting priorities and reducing the risk of vendor lock‑in. McKinsey recommends closer collaboration and co‑creation to transform providers into strategic partners who can help simplify legacy estates and accelerate transformation. InformationWeek adds that vendors should be judged on their ability to deliver tangible business value and on their willingness to be accountable when things go wrong.
For buyers, a practical checklist emerges from these sources. Involve delivery teams in estimations; demand named resources and verify backgrounds; require standardised handover documentation; specify KPIs and outcome measures; set governance cadences for review; and build a diversified supplier ecosystem that mixes large integrators with specialist vendors. For suppliers, the imperative is equally clear: sustain expertise beyond the sale, invest in handovers and knowledge transfer, and adopt one‑team practices that align sales, product and delivery incentives.
The irony is that the same players who can frustrate a CIO are often the quickest route to competitive advantage when the relationship works. Early access to features, embedded compliance expertise and the ability to inject scarce talent are powerful differentiators when combined with rigorous contracting and active governance. The choice for CIOs is therefore not whether to rely on suppliers, but how to structure relationships so that suppliers become predictable, accountable collaborators rather than sources of disappointment.
In an era where digital transformation timelines are unforgiving, the quality of supplier relationships will increasingly determine which organisations succeed. CIOs who insist on transparency, continuity and co‑creation — and who back those expectations with governance and contractual teeth — will be better placed to turn vendor relationships from a risk into a strategic amplifier.
Source: Noah Wire Services
Subscribe to Industry Updates
