A procurement strategy starts with a make-or-buy analysis: deciding which elements of the project genuinely need to be bought from an external supplier, and which are better kept in-house (Roseke, 2026). The comparison usually weighs cost, available capability, capacity and the time it would take to build the skill internally against the price and risk of bringing in a third party. Getting this right first avoids the strategy being built around the wrong scope.
Once the buy decision is made, leaders choose a delivery model. A single supplier for a whole package reduces coordination effort but concentrates risk, since the project depends on one relationship; splitting the work across several suppliers spreads that risk but demands more active contract management (Maule, 2022). Neither is automatically right; the choice should follow the complexity, criticality and market for what is being bought.
Contract type is the next decision, and it directly allocates risk between buyer and supplier. A fixed-price contract puts the risk of cost overrun on the supplier and suits a well-defined scope; a cost-reimbursable contract shares that risk with the buyer and works better where requirements may change; time-and-materials contracts suit short, hard-to-scope pieces of work (Roseke, 2026). Picking the wrong type either exposes the project to open-ended cost or discourages a supplier from raising problems early.
A procurement strategy also sets the route to market: whether to run an open competition, a restricted process with a shortlist, or a negotiated procedure where the requirement is too complex to specify fully upfront. The UK Government’s Sourcing Playbook recommends matching the procedure to the complexity of what is being bought, using early market engagement and dialogue for higher-risk or less-defined requirements rather than defaulting to a standard open tender (Cabinet Office, 2023).
Good practice treats procurement as a lifecycle rather than a single event. The Association for Project Management sets this out in stages: planning what and how to buy, preparing tender documents, running the competition, evaluating bids, awarding and mobilising the contract, then managing performance and closing it out (APM, nd). Zuberi (1987) makes the point that the right strategy depends on context: research-heavy work often stays in-house within a matrix team, construction work tends toward arm’s-length contracts, and government procurement carries extra regulatory rigidity that private-sector buying does not.
Throughout, the strategy should stay visibly linked to project objectives. The Chartered Institute of Procurement and Supply frames this as starting from the business context and vision for the project, then building supplier and contract choices around it, rather than letting the procurement process drive decisions the project did not ask for (CIPS, nd). A strategy agreed early, documented clearly and revisited as the project develops, gives every supplier relationship a clear purpose and gives leaders an early warning system when a buying decision starts to work against the project rather than for it.
Action Point
Before your next piece of external spend, write down in one paragraph what you are buying, why it cannot be done in-house, how many suppliers you will use, and which contract type fits the risk involved. Share it with your project sponsor before any tender goes out, and check it still holds true once bids come in.