Supply Chain Workforce Benchmarking & Operating Model Assessment

Functional Topic

Supply Chain Operating Model, Org Design & Workforce Benchmarking

Industry

Energy & Utilities

Support Needed

Organizational Benchmarking & Operating Model Consultant

Duration

12 Weeks

The Challenge

A leading U.S. energy utility wanted to assess whether its supply chain organization was structured appropriately to support current spend and future growth. Leadership needed clarity on:

How the organization compared with peers on spend supported per FTE.
How roles were distributed across sourcing, procurement operations, PMO/CoE, and planning.
Whether the current structure could sustain governance and execution as spend scaled.

The objective was to create a fact base for workforce planning and operating model decisions.

My Role

I led the benchmarking assessment across supply chain structure, role allocation, and functional capacity. My responsibilities included defining the benchmarking approach and peer comparison framework; assessing spend supported per FTE across the organization; reviewing sourcing, procurement operations, PMO/CoE, and planning coverage; and translating findings into executive-level structural implications.

The Approach

Benchmark the structure — compared supply chain sizing against peer utilities using spend supported per FTE.
Map role allocation — reviewed how category managers, sourcing specialists, procurement ops, and PMO/CoE roles were deployed.
Test functional coverage — assessed where execution, governance, and planning responsibilities sat.
Define scale implications — identified the structural reinforcement required as spend increased.

Benchmark Findings

Spend supported per FTE — this utility vs. peer utilities

Peer distribution shown as box-and-whisker (min–Q1–Q2–Q3–max) · Illustrative

So what: the utility supports more spend per FTE than the peer range — a lean, broad-scope structure, not an over-resourced one.

Spend supported per FTE by role — peer box plots vs. this utility

Each row = peer box-and-whisker (Q1–Q3 IQR + whiskers); ◆ = this utility · Illustrative

So what: every core role sits at or above the peer upper quartile — spend responsibility is concentrated, with limited dedicated execution headroom.

Overall structure

Above peer benchmarks, by design

The organization operated above peer benchmarks for spend supported per FTE, enabled by broad role scope within a compact structure.

Role design

Spend concentrated in manager roles

Category Managers and Sourcing Specialists each carried higher spend responsibility than peers, with execution work embedded within manager roles.

Functional footprint

Lean enablement, no standalone planning

Procurement/Ops and PMO/CoE supported higher spend per FTE — a lean footprint, limited centralized enablement, and no standalone planning function.

Results

Leadership visibility — a clear fact base on supply chain sizing relative to peers.
Structural clarity — showed where spend responsibility was concentrated across roles and functions.
Scaling roadmap — defined the reinforcement required to sustain governance and execution as spend grows.
Executive alignment — equipped leadership with a practical view of future operating model needs.

Sustaining this position as spend scales requires targeted structural reinforcement: clearer ownership of spend- and coordination-heavy activities, added execution support in Procurement/Ops, incremental PMO/CoE capacity, and formal planning capability where variability is highest.

Illustrative & anonymized. Client identity withheld; benchmarking data is directional and demonstrates the framework rather than reports exact figures.