Who decides on an industrial purchase: mapping the decision-making unit

An industrial purchase generally involves several people assessing the need, technical risk, commercial terms and the supplier's ability to meet its commitments. We map this decision-making group to identify roles, adapt discussions and move the account opening process forward.

The decision extends beyond the contract signatory

The final signatory is rarely the only person who influences an industrial purchase. The requirement may come from production, maintenance, process engineering, quality or site management. Purchasing then becomes involved to manage the tendering process, compare offers and negotiate terms.

Other functions may influence the decision without participating directly in sales meetings. A security manager may impose requirements for on-site work, while finance may review payment terms or the available budget. Senior management may also arbitrate when changing supplier entails operational risk.

We therefore avoid confusing a contact, a specifier and a decision-maker. An available contact may facilitate access to the account without having decision-making authority. Conversely, someone with little visibility in the discussions may block or approve the project.

The roles to identify within the decision-making unit

The mapping process begins with the person who initiated the requirement and the future users. These people understand the operational issue, site constraints and limitations of the existing solution. They provide insight into the practical consequences of poor performance, a delay or inadequate integration.

We then identify technical specifiers and compliance leads. They may define specifications, verify certifications, oversee trials or validate compatibility with existing equipment. Their opinion directly influences whether a new solution can be added to the approved list.

Purchasing, the budget owner and the signatory complete the map. Purchasing notably assesses price, contractual terms and the robustness of the supplier process. The budget owner approves the expenditure, while the signatory formally commits the company in accordance with its internal rules.

The information to collect to qualify each organisation

A name and job title are not sufficient to understand a contact's role. We seek to establish what that person must approve, the risks they want to limit and the criteria they use to compare options. We also assess their level of influence over the other members of the decision-making group.

The position of each stakeholder must be qualified precisely. A person may support the change, remain neutral, prefer the incumbent supplier or oppose the project for technical or organisational reasons. This position may change as the supplier provides evidence, addresses objections and reduces perceived risk.

We also document relationships between stakeholders. The maintenance manager may rely on process engineering to support a solution, while procurement awaits quality approval before opening negotiations. These links indicate the order in which conversations should be conducted.

A map that evolves as the account is opened

The decision-making centre is not fixed. New contacts emerge during a trial, a contract review, a site visit or a request for approved supplier status. The map must therefore be updated after every significant interaction.

We distinguish confirmed information from assumptions. An inaccurate attribution of decision-making power can lead to presenting a commercial proposal too early or overlooking a technical objection. Progressive validation of roles reduces these errors and improves meeting preparation.

Mapping also helps organise commercial activities. It enables us to select the right message, material and level of detail for each stakeholder. Senior management expects an economic rationale and risk control, while a user focuses more closely on implementation conditions and operational continuity.

What we recommend

We recommend creating an initial stakeholder map from the first discussions, even if it remains incomplete. It must specify the assumed role of each stakeholder, their decision criteria, their current position and the next piece of information to obtain. Each meeting should be used to confirm or correct this representation.

We also advise against asking directly who makes the decision, as if it rested with one person. Questions about technical approval, supplier listing, budget, trials and sign-off reveal the process more precisely. They also help identify stakeholders who are absent from the conversation.

Finally, we adapt commercial progress to the level of risk perceived by each function. The objective is to build support among several stakeholders within the account, address objections in the right order and prepare a coherent transition to procurement and the signatory. This method limits reliance on a single contact and provides a more reliable view of the decision.