No one gets fired for buying the same supplier

Every few months, somewhere in a manufacturing facility, a capital equipment decision gets made that has very little to do with what's best for the plant.

‍

The engineering team may have evaluated multiple suppliers. They may have toured facilities, reviewed specs, and concluded that one option offers meaningfully better hygienic design or changeover performance.

‍

And then they order the familiar supplier anyway.

‍

The procurement problem

PTL CEO Nick Halliday has seen this firsthand more than once. In one case, a company had evaluated PTL's equipment, liked what they saw, and indicated they intended to buy. When the order came through, it went to an established European supplier. The reason: the product had previously been manufactured on that supplier's line.

‍

Not because they performed better for that application. Not because PTL couldn't do it. Because it had been done there before, and doing it again was defensible in a way that switching wasn't.

‍

Nick doesn't tell this story with particular bitterness. It's just an accurate description of how procurement works in large organizations. "It's just very easy for people to go with the established name," he observes. The comment isn't really about any one supplier. It's about what happens when the path of least resistance runs through a familiar name.

‍

What the procurement process actually rewards

Part of what makes established supplier relationships sticky is that they're genuinely easier to manage. Adding a new vendor to an approved supplier list requires vetting, documentation, negotiation of payment terms, and sign-off from multiple stakeholders. Placing an order with an approved supplier requires none of that. The transaction cost alone creates a real bias toward continuity.

‍

This is compounded by the career dynamics around capital equipment. When a familiar supplier delivers disappointing results, the accountability is diffuse. The supplier has a long history. Others in the organization chose them before. If something goes wrong, the decision is defensible. When an unfamiliar supplier is chosen and something goes wrong, the accountability is specific. It lands on whoever made the recommendation.

‍

Dion Metcalfe, PTL's Global Operations Officer, who spent decades in senior roles at Hershey and Kellogg, puts it plainly: "If they put their neck out and go with a smaller, less familiar supplier, it's seen as a risk." For a less senior engineer trying to navigate both the technical and political dimensions of a capital decision, the calculus is clear. The upside of choosing better equipment is shared across the organization. The downside of choosing the wrong unknown supplier lands on you personally.

‍

What the equipment actually looks like after 13 years

The consequence of this dynamic is that equipment design can stagnate without anyone noticing, because the feedback loop between performance and procurement is so slow.

‍

Mike Nevines, PTL's Global Technical Officer, recently visited a plant running equipment from a well-known European manufacturer, installed about 13 years ago. His assessment of the hygienic design was blunt: "The design was poor for sanitary purposes." Crevices and surfaces that couldn't be properly cleaned. Design decisions that made sense in an era of long production runs and infrequent changeovers, but that now create real risk in facilities managing allergens and frequent coating changes.

‍

The more uncomfortable observation was this: the current models from that manufacturer haven't evolved meaningfully from the version he was looking at. "Their designs are stuck in the past," Nick notes. "There's been very little development." The relationship between the plant and the supplier had continued. The procurement logic had held. And the equipment kept shipping.

‍

This isn't unique to any one manufacturer. It's what happens when supplier relationships become self-perpetuating, when the incentive to innovate is weak because the demand signal from buyers is muted by loyalty and inertia.

‍

What this costs in practice

The cost of supplier lock-in is difficult to calculate precisely, partly because it's distributed across years of operating decisions rather than showing up as a single line item.

‍

It shows up in cleaning time that erodes shift capacity. In workarounds operators develop when equipment is difficult to disassemble. In allergen management protocols that require more labor because the equipment doesn't support quick, thorough cleaning. In changeover windows that are longer than they need to be, month after month, for the life of the equipment.

‍

None of these costs typically get attributed back to the original procurement decision. They're absorbed as operational reality, just how manufacturing works. The equipment lasts 15 or 20 years. The original decision-maker may have moved on. The feedback loop closes slowly if at all.

‍

What changes the calculus

The procurement leaders who do break out of this cycle tend to start the same way: with a lower-stakes purchase. Not a full production line—something smaller, where the financial exposure is limited but the performance is visible quickly. A single piece of ancillary equipment that lets the engineering team evaluate build quality, hygienic design, and supplier responsiveness without putting anyone's career on the line.

‍

It's a slow path, but it maps to how trust actually accumulates in large organizations: not through arguments about superior specifications, but through demonstrated results that transfer the risk from the buyer's judgment to the supplier's track record.

‍

The deeper question for operations and engineering leaders is whether the procurement process you've built is actually selecting for performance, or selecting for defensibility. Those aren't always the same thing. In capital equipment decisions with 15-year implications, the gap between them is worth examining.