The SupplyChainBrain Podcast

The five rules are explained at a surface level with some genuinely useful framing (bilateral statement of work, flexible contracting framework, insight vs. oversight governance), but the episode is padded with Mount Everest analogies, self-help digressions, and statements of the obvious. The ratio of novel ideas to filler is low for a 24-minute episode.

“In a true strategic partnership, we're not negotiating. We've recognized. I've recognized. I need you. I can't climb Mount Everest without my serpa.”

“you should have a taxonomy and a workload allocation instead of a statement of work. It's end to end, all the things that need to be happen. Here's what the supplier does, here's what you, the buyer have to do. You are equally committed to my success.”

The bilateral statement of work and 'check your power at the door' framing have genuine contrarian edge against standard procurement thinking, but the overall framework is 25 years old and is presented here at a promotional-book-tour level rather than with new intellectual development. The self-help pivot dilutes rather than extends the thinking.

“In a true strategic partnership, we're not negotiating”

“we're going to take away this dictatorial supplier shall tell you exactly how to do the work”

Kate is a credible practitioner-turned-academic with real Microsoft outsourcing experience on multiple sides of deals, a legitimate research pedigree (UT/Air Force), and 160 documented applying organisations. However, this episode positions her primarily as a book promoter, and she is more framework-evangelist than current hands-on operator.

“before being at the University of Tennessee, I was a practitioner. I worked for Microsoft, and I outsourced some of their largest outsourcing Deals. And then I was on the supplier side as well as the consulting side.”

“we have over 160 organizations that have applied vested. And it's working.”

The episode is almost entirely abstract. Named examples are fleeting and undetailed: P&G's 80,000 suppliers is the only real data point, Dell gets one sentence, the Canadian government bid process and Brazil flood anecdote are mentioned but never unpacked. No deal sizes, timelines, outcomes, or metrics are shared.

“P and G has 80,000 suppliers. They can't all be strategic.”

“Dell said was one of the first companies that applied Vested to one of their strategic partnerships. They said it's radical common sense.”

The host makes a few sharp observations ('you appear to be a business writer, but you're really a self help author in disguise') and raises a genuinely interesting power-asymmetry challenge. However, he never meaningfully pushes back on vague claims, lets the Mount Everest analogy run unchecked, and the ESG pivot at the end feels tacked-on rather than probing.

“you appear to be a business writer, but you're really a self help author in disguise”

“in the real world, sometimes even if you have partners that are important to one another, they might vary greatly in terms of power, size, purchasing power, heft, and in that case they're unequal on paper. Are they still able to engage in these rules?”