Supplier consolidation is often positioned as an easy win: fewer vendors, more leverage, better discounts, and less administrative work. In many cases, there is real value in simplifying a supplier program, especially when too many vendors are receiving opportunities without producing results. But I also think there is a point where consolidation stops creating efficiency and starts creating risk. Too often, organizations become focused on getting to a specific supplier count without asking whether that number actually supports the business. Ten vendors feels better than thirty, and five may feel even cleaner, but a smaller supplier list does not automatically mean a stronger program.
One of the biggest risks of over-consolidation is that it can reduce competition. When only a small number of suppliers have access to the work, the client may have fewer options for both talent and pricing. The goal should never be to flood a requirement with dozens of submissions, but there should be enough competition in the program to know that the organization is truly seeing the market. If every candidate is coming from the same few sources, you may not be selecting the best talent available. You may simply be selecting the best talent available to those suppliers.
The pricing conversation is another area where consolidation can look better on paper than it does in reality. Organizations may give more volume to fewer suppliers in exchange for lower markups or additional discounts, and that can absolutely create savings. The problem is that markup is only one piece of the total cost. If the suppliers remaining in the program consistently present candidates at the top of the rate range, take longer to fill positions, or cannot reach the right talent pools, the negotiated discount can disappear quickly. Saving a few points on markup does not mean much if the overall cost of the talent is higher.
I also believe smaller and niche suppliers are sometimes undervalued during consolidation efforts. A supplier may only make a few placements each year, but that does not necessarily mean they are not important to the program. Some vendors specialize in certain technologies, geographies, industries, or difficult-to-find skill sets. They may not represent a large percentage of overall spend, but when a hard-to-fill role comes along, they may be the supplier that can reach talent the larger firms cannot. Looking only at placement volume can make it easy to eliminate a supplier that is actually providing a very specific and valuable capability.
There is also a capacity issue that can be overlooked when more work is shifted to fewer vendors. More volume does not automatically mean those suppliers suddenly have more recruiting resources available. In some cases, the same recruiting teams are now responsible for significantly more openings, and quality can begin to decline. The program may start seeing more submissions, but not necessarily better submissions. Response times can slow, candidate quality can become inconsistent, and difficult roles may receive less attention because suppliers are prioritizing the positions they believe they can fill most quickly.
None of this means every supplier should stay in a program. I absolutely believe vendors should be held accountable for performance. If a supplier continually receives opportunities and does not respond, does not submit qualified candidates, cannot compete on rate, or consistently fails to deliver value, there should be a reason to reduce their access or remove them from the program. My concern is when supplier decisions are driven primarily by a target number instead of the results those suppliers are producing.
In my view, the strongest programs create a supplier ecosystem with purpose. There may be a group of core suppliers supporting the majority of recurring demand, while specialized suppliers are used for niche skills, difficult markets, or unique needs. The mix does not have to be large, but it should be broad enough to maintain competition and give the organization access to the talent it needs. Supplier performance should determine who earns more opportunities, not simply how large the vendor list looks on a spreadsheet.
Instead of asking, “How many vendors can we eliminate?” I think organizations should be asking, “Are we creating enough competition to get the best talent at the best overall cost?” Those are very different conversations. There is absolutely value in simplifying a supplier program, but there is also a difference between simplifying it and limiting it. When consolidation begins reducing access to talent, weakening competition, or creating too much dependency on a small group of suppliers, it has gone too far.
When you pour your heart into building something authentic, something rooted in partnership, transparency, and measurable impact, it is deeply rewarding to see it recognized. Koncert IT Solutions was featured in Staffing Industry Analysts’ 2025 MSP Global Landscape and Differentiators Report, a showcase highlighting the world’s most forward-thinking Managed Service Providers. To be ranked among leading MSPs […]
Supplier consolidation is often positioned as an easy win: fewer vendors, more leverage, better discounts, and less administrative work. In many cases, there is real value in simplifying a supplier program, especially when too many vendors are receiving opportunities without producing results. But I also think there is a point where consolidation stops creating efficiency […]
One of the biggest mistakes I see in contingent workforce programs is measuring supplier activity instead of supplier performance. It is easy to track how many candidates a vendor submitted, how quickly they responded to a requisition, or how many roles they touched in a quarter. Those numbers are useful, but on their own, they […]
I have spent a lot of time in and around contingent workforce programs, and one conversation continues to come up: how many vendors should we really have? It sounds like a simple question, but in my view, it is often the wrong one. There is absolutely such a thing as having too many suppliers in […]
RFPs are designed to bring structure and clarity to an important decision. On paper, the process makes sense. Define the requirements, evaluate multiple providers, compare responses, and select the best partner. But in the contingent workforce space, the outcome does not always reflect the intention. Many organizations go through a detailed RFP process and still end up with […]
Most organizations think about attracting talent as an internal effort. Employer brand, job descriptions, and recruiting teams all play a role. But in a contingent workforce program, there is another layer that is often overlooked. Your vendors are your front line. They are the ones speaking to candidates every day. They shape how your company is positioned in the […]
There is no shortage of great presentations in the contingent workforce space. Every MSP and supplier can walk into a room with a polished deck, strong messaging, and a sales team that knows how to tell a compelling story. On paper, it all makes sense. The strategy sounds right. The model looks proven. The results […]
Flexibility has become one of the most common words used in the contingent workforce. It shows up in nearly every conversation, every proposal, and every strategy discussion. Flexible workforce. Flexible staffing. Flexible solutions. It sounds right and it sounds necessary. But when you look closer, many programs that claim to be flexible are still operating in very rigid ways. Most contingent workforce […]
Most contingent workforce conversations start with speed. How quickly can we find the right talent, how fast can we fill the role, how do we keep things moving. Those are important questions. But what happens after the contractor starts is where the real outcome is determined. The first 90 days of a contractor often set the tone for the entire engagement. Yet it is […]
Over the years, I have heard the term strategic partner used in countless conversations. It appears in contracts, quarterly business reviews, supplier presentations, and executive meetings. Clients use it to describe suppliers, and suppliers use it to describe clients. The question I continue to come back to is simple: What does it actually mean? Too often, […]
As EVP at Koncert IT Solutions, I spend a lot of time talking with clients about their contingent workforce programs. Most of the conversations start in the same place. They are trying to move faster, control costs, and improve quality. But as we get deeper into it, two things almost always come up. Lack of visibility and a vendor […]
