When we designed the Procurement Futures Fund, one of the first questions on the table was: who reviews applications and confirms eligibility?
The easy answer would have been to keep that decision internal. Faster, simpler, no coordination overhead. We did not take the easy answer, and this post explains why.
Why vendor-judged programmes have a credibility problem
Most vendor-sponsored professional programmes are assessed, at least in part, by people who work for the vendor. This creates a structural tension that is difficult to resolve even with the best intentions: the organisation funding the programme has commercial interests that are not always identical to the interests of the recipients.
We did not want that tension in this programme. The Procurement Futures Fund should serve procurement professionals, not Zycus sales targets. The cleanest way to make that promise credible is to ensure that the majority of the people reviewing applications have no commercial relationship with Zycus.
The panel
The panel includes David Loseby, former CPO at Royal Mail and one of the most respected independent voices in European procurement leadership. Raoul Groening, a senior procurement executive with direct experience of large-scale AI deployment in procurement operations. Magnus Bergfors, bringing a Nordic perspective on procurement capability development and AI governance. And one further independent CPO whose appointment will be confirmed shortly.
Most panel members have no employment or commercial relationship with Zycus. They were approached specifically because they bring credibility that we cannot manufacture, years of genuine procurement leadership, reputations that they would not risk on a programme that was not genuinely what it claims to be.
What the review actually involves
It is worth being precise here, because the word panel can sound more competitive than this process actually is. Reviewing an application is not a contest for a small number of seats. Every professional who meets the eligibility criteria, eight or more years in procurement, employment at a qualifying organisation, has a genuine path to approval. The panel’s role is to confirm fit: that the application is honest, that the course connects to a real development need, and that the professional intends to put the learning to use.
This matters because we know what the recipients receive will only ever be as credible as the process behind it. Some of the professionals who receive funding will never become Zycus customers. They will take the course, develop the skills, apply them in their organisation, possibly using a competitor’s platform, and that will be a successful outcome for the fund even if it produces zero commercial return. That is the point. The fund exists to serve procurement, not to generate leads. The independent panel is the structural proof of that.
The review process is not designed to keep people out. It is designed to make sure the fund reaches people who are genuinely ready to use it well. If that is you, apply with honesty about where you are and where you want to go.
Related Reads:
- Smart AI Procurement Intake Tools for Success
- Reliable, Fast, and Precise: AI-Powered RFP Automation
- Unlocking Success: Intake Management Best Practices And Key Strategies
- Intake to Pay vs. Procure to Pay: Key Differences and Selecting the Right Approach
- The Growing Significance of Intake to Procure Management Soaring in Procurement
- Revolutionizing Procurement Requests and Intake Management Automation: Empowering Users in the Procurement Ecosystem
