ASCI Connect

I've been spending some time looking through job titles across the supply chain space, on platforms like LinkedIn and elsewhere, and the variation is quite striking.

We see titles such as Supply Chain Analyst, Manager, Lead, Head of Supply Chain, Director, and more. In some organisations, a "Supply Chain Manager" might focus solely on logistics, while in others, the role carries full end-to-end responsibility.

It got me thinking. Are these differences helpful, or are they starting to create confusion about how we define the profession?

A few questions:

• Should the term "Supply Chain" be reserved for integrated, end-to-end functions?
• Are we blurring the lines by applying it to functional roles such as procurement, logistics, or planning?
• Would a more consistent structure help strengthen career pathways and professional recognition?

One way to look at it could be:

• Functional roles (procurement, logistics, planning)
• Integrated supply chain roles
• Strategic/executive supply chain leadership

This is just my perspective. I'd be interested to hear how this is approached in your organisations or even in your own careers.

Do these titles clarify roles… or are they starting to dilute what "supply chain" really means?

------------------------------
Pieter Nagel
Chief Executive Officer Australasian Supply Chain Institute (ASCI)
------------------------------

Your perspective is well aligned with the structural evolution many professions have experienced. Procurement, much like accounting and finance in earlier stages, is navigating a period of title inflation and definitional ambiguity that can dilute role clarity if not managed deliberately.

A job title, in practical terms, functions as a signal rather than a comprehensive descriptor. It provides a directional indication of scope, but it is the underlying job description that carries the substantive weight. This is where expectations, accountabilities, and interfaces are clarified, and where alignment with organizational objectives is either achieved or compromised.

The critical point, as you highlight, is the linkage between title and actual scope. Titles should not be aspirational labels but precise representations of functional responsibility. For instance, the designation "Supply Chain" should be applied with discipline, reserved for roles that genuinely encompass integrated, end to end oversight across planning, sourcing, logistics, and delivery. Overextending such terms risks eroding their meaning and creating misalignment both internally and in the broader market. Hiring managers should consult with HR expert in this regard to ensure correct job titles are selected.

Ultimately, strengthening the profession requires a more rigorous approach to role architecture, where titles, job descriptions, and competencies are tightly synchronized. This not only improves internal clarity but also enhances external credibility and talent mobility across the field.

------------------------------
Kehinde Onasanya
kenonepharm@yahoo.com
Switzerland
------------------------------

Agree in principle, and Kehinde's points are also well stated.  There are some complicating factors which do make it tricky to get right though:

• Having been in this gig since the early 1990's, I do not recall a time when this was ever clear or consistent.  I remember in the early/mid '90s the whole debate as logistics started to be rebranded (e.g Linfox changing the words on their trucks from Integrated Logistics to Supply Chain Solutions (or something similar)).  Some industries kept with logistics, in steel we held onto the Operations Planning function for a long time.  Defence seems to have held onto Supply in the case of Navy and Supply / Logistics for Air Force.  Can also be a bit tricky in big manufacturing with some of them keeping factories and factory warehouses under an "Operations" function while "Supply Chain" gets DC's, terminals, trucks and planning.
• This issue equally applies to pretty much any other function.  Looking at HR, Sales & Marketing, Finance, etc.  I see the same variation.  What a Finance Manager does in one organisation is done by a CFO in another, and in some cases a Commercial Manager in another.  In HR, a Head of HR in one is a People & Culture Lead in another and a HR Manager in a third

So I do not see this as a recent role inflation or something that is "starting" to cause confusion.  It has always been this way, and most other functions are not any better, in many cases reflecting significant differences in how they are internally structured.  That being said, it would be great to get more consistency on this, but short of driving to get more consistency in functional nomenclature across business, I think this would be challanging.

------------------------------
Scott Githens
Supply and Inventory Planning Manager
scott.githens@infrabuild.com
------------------------------