Government & Defence Supply Chain Management

Nai Yan joined Trace as a Manager in April 2026, bringing close to a decade of consulting experience from Deloitte, where she spent several years in Operations Transformation working across defence and government clients based in Canberra. She holds a Bachelor of Laws and Bachelor of Commerce from Deakin University and a Graduate Diploma in Legal Practice from ANU.

We sat down with Nai Yan to talk about her path from law into consulting, how government departments think about value differently to commercial clients, and why she thinks resilience is the piece too many supply chains still treat as optional.

You’re qualified in law and commerce, then went into consulting rather than practising. What pulled you across, and what does legal training give you that a conventional supply chain path might not?

NY: I got into consulting by pure accident! After missing out on graduate programs for most of the major law firms, I was told about a consulting graduate opportunity in Canberra. I didn’t know what consulting was, or what I was signing up for, but I gave it a shot, and the next thing I knew, I was in Canberra working as a graduate consultant!

I think my tertiary education gave me a broad range of skills. Commerce captured the numbers and spreadsheets side of things, while law captured the language and problem solving aspects.

Where I think legal training specialises is how it trains you to build an argument. When assessing a legal case in front of you, you don’t just identify what’s applicable and relevant.You need to identify a position, and build an argument for it. You have to ask yourself “why is this the way to go?” And in building that argument, you have to be prepared for any and all counterarguments—thinking through “how can someone pick apart my rationale?” 

For consulting, it means that you’re thinking through how your report or presentation can survive scrutiny from a client or a sceptical stakeholder, or how to best convince them that your recommendation is right for them.

So whilst I might not understand all the nuances of a warehouse like a traditional supply chain practitioner, my education gave me a specific way of approaching problems and making a case that I think serves me more than even I realise.

Defence and government supply chains carry a level of scrutiny most commercial work never sees. When the stakes are national capability or public money, how does that change the way you approach a problem?

NY: I think the key difference is the measure of success. For most commercial businesses, the ultimate goal is profit, either by increasing revenue or decreasing costs. In contrast, government departments, including Defence, focus on capability, or how it will serve the people. It’s not that cost isn’t a factor, it absolutely is when the money used is taxpayer money, but it’s the purpose for which they’re doing it that is the measure of success.

When it comes to money, government departments usually consider whether something is Value for Money (VfM): does it provide sufficient value for the money that is being spent? If something costs a lot of money, but will likewise bring a lot of value and benefit, then it is considered VfM and is likely to go ahead. It’s not the size of the project necessarily, it’s more about what is worth spending on.

It means that when you are faced with a problem, you’re not necessarily immediately thinking “how do I make this more cost efficient?” but more likely “what is the value that this will bring?” because you need to determine if it's VfM to determine if it will go ahead. It means that when you are considering factors and success, you’re not only looking at monetary or financial impacts, you’re looking at the broader value and benefits of the project.

You've spent time inside regulatory and compliance-heavy environments, most people treat that complexity as a hurdle. What does working within it actually teach you?

NY: Some people definitely view regulation and compliance as a burden and a barrier to progress, and yes, sometimes it does seem that way. It can definitely make things take longer or cost more to do, but that doesn’t necessarily mean it's a bad thing, especially if you’re not working in a commercial environment where the ultimate goal is profit.

Another way to view it is that regulation and compliance provide guardrails and guidelines on what is required. This way, you can create a fit-for-purpose product, because you are clear on what is needed to make it compliant.

Another perspective is that by putting in the effort at the start to ensure things are compliant or meet regulation, you’re saving yourself the headache later if it isn’t.You’re avoiding the time, effort, and cost of any consequences of non-compliance, potential rework or even replacement.

If you can change the perspective that regulation and compliance is there to make your life hard, and instead utilise it to help you, it can be something to leverage and propel you and your project forward.

Resilience and efficiency often pull in opposite directions, a lean operation is cheaper but more fragile. How do you help a client decide where that line sits for them?

NY: It generally comes down to what the client wants and needs—and what they want and what they need can be different.

Sometimes they want the nice shiny resilience option, but given their strategic priorities, financial budget or timeline pressures, they might have to opt for a leaner operation as that is what they can reasonably implement to meet the need. Of course the opposite can also be true. A less expensive option might be attractive, but the scenario might mean that a more resilient option is more feasible given the operational or system requirements.

These are just examples, and as with any decision making, I believe that clients need the information to make an informed choice. If they can clearly see the benefits, but also the costs—both financial and non-financial—as well as the timelines, alignment to strategy and so on, generally one of the options will emerge as more appropriate, at least at the moment.

By presenting clients with the information, it enables them to make an informed decision that is appropriate for them, at the time, in the scenario. There is no one-size fits all solution, after all.

You spent years at a large firm before moving to a boutique like Trace. What does a boutique let you do for a client that a big firm structure makes harder?

NY: I think both large firms and boutique firms have their pros and cons, and a lot of the time it comes down to what you want at your stage of your career.

For me, in the short time I’ve been at Trace, I’ve loved being on the ground and interacting with clients more—because we’re not a big name, because we're a smaller team, every Trace consultant has to be a part of the meeting, part of the conversation. It means that I can build deeper relationships with clients and understand them better. 

It also makes the work feel more meaningful, because I’ve heard directly from the client what isn’t working, or what they hope to improve. It makes every bit of the report writing, data analysis and slide design that little bit more personable, because I can hear the client in my head telling me why the work is important to them.

What's shifting in how supply chains need to be run that you don't think enough organisations have caught up to yet?

NY: I think the work Emma Woodberry is doing in building sustainability and resilience is an emerging, but critical, piece of the puzzle that supply chains don’t emphasise enough yet.

Most supply chains focus on the cost, and time, elements and where they are getting value, but making sure it is sustainable and resilient is a secondary priority: something to consider when times are good, but the impacts of not considering this are greatest when times are bad.

A good example is COVID. Prior to the pandemic, so many supply chains had focused on being a global supply chain, mostly for cost effectiveness, that when global trade faltered with lockdowns, many companies were suddenly without key products or parts that they had always relied on. They struggled because they had not built the ability to withstand the change and shock to their supply chains and had no idea how to continue to meet demand with the interruption to their supply.

If sustainability and resilience are considered for supply chains from the get go, or at least reinforced regularly, then the ability for organisations to withstand disruption and change is amplified, and supply chains everywhere will be more adaptable and viable in the long term.

A quick update since this article was first published. On the 25th of July, the US replaced its temporary 10 percent global tariff with new duties targeting 60 trading partners, including Australia, over forced labour enforcement concerns. Australia now sits in the 12.5 percent tier, as reported by Australian Associated Press. The federal government has called the move unjustified and is pushing for it to be removed. The exposure below still applies, arguably more than ever.

For most of the last three decades, supply chains were built on an assumption that has stopped being true: that goods would move across borders at predictable, low, and stable cost. Sourcing strategies optimised for the lowest landed cost. Inventory was stripped out in the name of efficiency. Long-term contracts assumed consistency. That world has shifted, tariffs and trade fragmentation are no longer a passing shock to be waited out; through 2026 they have become a structural feature of the trading environment, and they are reshaping how supply chains have to be designed and run.

For Australian businesses, the instinctive reaction has been to check direct exposure, conclude it is small, and move on. That reaction is half right and dangerously incomplete. The direct hit to Australian exporters is indeed modest in aggregate. The indirect exposure, the way tariffs ripple through global supply chains and arrive on Australian businesses as repriced inputs, disrupted lanes, and volatile lead times, is far larger and far less understood. And it lands squarely on procurement and supply chain functions to manage.

This article is for procurement, supply chain, and operations leaders who need a practical response to the 2026 tariff environment rather than another round of commentary on trade politics. It covers where things actually stand, why the real exposure is indirect, why the old efficiency-first playbook no longer works, and the concrete procurement and supply chain moves that build resilience without simply inflating cost.

Where things actually stand

The headline facts are clearer than the noise around them suggests. Most Australian exports to the United States now face a baseline tariff of around 10 percent, with steel and aluminium subject to far higher rates of around 50 percent. Australia exports roughly $20 billion to the US each year, which sounds large but represents about 4 percent of total exports and around 0.8 percent of GDP. Treasury modelling has put the direct economic impact as marginal, on the order of a 0.1 percent reduction in GDP in 2025 and 0.2 percent in 2026. The most directly exposed industries are metals and advanced manufacturing, which carry the bulk of the US-bound trade.

So far, so manageable, and this is exactly where the complacency comes from. But two things complicate the picture. The first is that tariff effects take time to flow through, typically three to twelve months depending on the industry, so the full impact of measures already in force is only becoming apparent now, with further changes lagging behind that. The second, and more telling, is what is happening to disruption more broadly. The share of Australian industrial businesses reporting active supply chain disruptions, having fallen from a pandemic peak of around 79 percent in late 2022 to about 35 percent by late 2024, climbed back to roughly 47 percent through 2025. Supply chain performance is deteriorating again, and tariffs and the trade fragmentation around them are a significant part of why.

The aggregate GDP number, in other words, badly understates the operational reality facing individual businesses. A 0.2 percent hit to the economy is small. A repriced critical input, a rerouted supplier, or a lead time that has doubled is not small to the business experiencing it.

The real exposure is indirect

This is the insight that should reframe how Australian businesses think about tariffs. The question is not only "do I export to the US," it is "where does tariff and trade risk enter my supply chain," and for most businesses the answer is through the back door, not the front.

Most Australian organisations import components, materials, or finished goods whose cost and availability are shaped by global trade flows. When tariffs reprice those flows, the cost increases cascade through to Australian buyers regardless of whether they trade with the US at all. A manufacturer relying on imported components, a retailer sourcing product through global supply chains, a hospitality operator buying imported equipment: each can feel the effect quietly, through supplier invoices and input costs, without ever seeing a tariff line. As global supply chains reroute around the new tariff map, the secondary effects, capacity shifts, freight volatility, lead-time instability, and demand displacement, reach trade-exposed Australian industries that assumed they were insulated.

There is also a strategic uncertainty cost that sits on top of the direct price effect. US trade policy has been unusually dynamic, with settings changing repeatedly and more changes signalled, and that instability causes firms worldwide to delay investment and sourcing decisions until they have clarity that never quite arrives. For procurement, that means planning against a moving target, which is its own form of exposure.

The practical conclusion is that a business can have negligible direct US export exposure and still be materially exposed through its supply chain. Treating the two as the same thing is the most common and most expensive misreading of the current environment.

Why the old playbook no longer works

The supply chains most exposed today are the ones that were optimised hardest for the previous era. A strategy built around single-sourcing from the lowest-cost country, minimal inventory, and landed-cost decisions that ignored geopolitical and trade risk was rational when trade was stable and cheap. In a fragmented trade environment it is brittle. The same concentration that delivered efficiency now concentrates tariff exposure, disruption risk, and the inability to respond when a lane closes or a cost spikes.

This does not mean abandoning efficiency. It means pricing risk into decisions that previously ignored it, and rebalancing toward resilience where the exposure justifies it. The organisations that navigate this best are not necessarily the largest; they are the ones with clarity over their costs, their margins, and their supply chain exposure, and the agility to act on it. That clarity is a procurement and supply chain capability, and building it is the work.

The procurement and supply chain playbook

A credible response to the 2026 tariff environment is a sequence of deliberate moves, not a single defensive reaction.

See your exposure beyond the first tier. You cannot manage risk you cannot see, and tariff and trade exposure usually hides below the first tier, in the sub-components and raw materials that feed your key inputs and cross multiple borders before they reach you. Mapping the supply chain to n-tier depth, identifying where tariffs and trade risk actually enter and where single points of failure sit, is the foundation for everything else. This visibility is the single most valuable thing most organisations lack, and the hardest to build, because the data sits across many suppliers who guard it.

Reprice cost-to-serve against the new reality. Tariffs change the landed-cost mathematics that sourcing decisions were built on. A supplier or lane that was cheapest under the old regime may not be once tariffs, freight volatility, and risk are priced in. Rebuilding the cost-to-serve and landed-cost model so decisions reflect current conditions, rather than pre-tariff assumptions baked in years ago, is often where the first real savings and risk reductions appear.

Diversify sourcing deliberately, not reflexively. Reducing concentration in any single country or supplier lowers exposure, and the China-plus-one and friendshoring strategies much discussed are part of the answer. But diversification has to be weighed on total cost and total risk, not tariff avoidance alone, and it has to reckon with the fact that Australia's reliance on a small number of trading partners is genuinely hard to unwind given the economic complementarities involved. The goal is a sourcing base that is robust to disruption, not simply one that dodges the current tariff. This is core procurement and sourcing strategy work.

Rethink network and country of origin. Where inputs are processed and assembled affects tariff exposure, and that makes network design a tariff lever. Some businesses are already exploring regional processing hubs that allow partial reclassification of origin to reduce exposure, as seen in parts of the medical device sector shifting processing into Southeast Asia. Network and origin decisions that were once purely about cost and service now carry a trade-risk dimension that procurement and supply chain need to design around.

Use commercial and contractual levers. Tariff pass-through clauses, renegotiated supplier terms, longer-term agreements to manage volatility, and currency management where relevant all help share and stabilise the risk rather than absorbing it whole. The commercial structure of supplier relationships is a tool, not a fixed constraint.

Set the right inventory posture. The lean, just-in-time default needs revisiting for exposed and critical inputs. Selective resilience inventory, buffering the specific items where disruption or tariff risk is high, balances cost against risk far better than either blanket stockpiling or running everything thin. The discipline is in choosing where to hold and where not to.

Plan in scenarios. Because trade policy will keep moving, reacting to each change is a losing game. Scenario planning, and the corporate wargaming that some are now adopting, lets organisations anticipate plausible tariff and disruption scenarios and test their network and sourcing against them in advance, so the response is prepared rather than improvised. This connects directly to the resilience thinking we set out in navigating global trade tensions.

Leverage the trade agreements. With the federal government accelerating trade agreements with partners including ASEAN, India, and the UK to cushion the impact, procurement can deliberately route sourcing and market access to take advantage of preferential terms where they exist.

The opportunity, not just the threat

It is worth resisting a purely defensive reading. Trade fragmentation creates openings as well as costs. As global supply chains reroute, there is room for reliable, well-positioned suppliers to win share from those caught on the wrong side of the new tariff map. Agribusiness players are shifting into premium categories where margins can absorb tariff effects. Regional and sovereign supply relationships are becoming more valuable. And the organisations that build genuine supply chain agility now will be better placed not just to weather disruption but to capitalise when competitors cannot. Resilience, built well, is a competitive advantage rather than a cost of insurance.

The Australian context

Several Australian specifics shape the response. The direct export exposure is concentrated in metals and advanced manufacturing, so most of the economy faces the indirect channel rather than the direct one. The long-standing reliance on a narrow set of trading partners makes diversification both more important and more difficult. The country's geography and distance amplify the freight and lead-time volatility that trade fragmentation produces. And the government's pivot toward broader trade agreements offers a partial cushion that procurement can actively use. The right response is grounded in this reality: modest direct exposure, real indirect exposure, and a premium on visibility and agility.

How Trace Consultants can help

At Trace Consultants, we help Australian businesses turn tariff and trade uncertainty into a managed, deliberate supply chain response rather than a reactive scramble. The work sits squarely in our core: procurement, sourcing strategy, network design, and resilience.

We map your exposure to n-tier depth. We build the supply chain visibility that reveals where tariff and trade risk actually enters, beyond the first tier, into the sub-components and origins that drive your real exposure and your single points of failure.

We reprice the decisions. We rebuild cost-to-serve and landed-cost models against current conditions, so sourcing and network decisions reflect the tariff reality rather than pre-tariff assumptions.

We design the sourcing and network response. Through our procurement and warehousing and distribution practices, we develop deliberate diversification, network and origin strategies, and the inventory posture that balances cost against resilience for your specific exposure.

We build the scenario capability. We help you plan against plausible tariff and disruption scenarios and test your supply chain in advance, so your response is prepared rather than improvised, building on our supply chain resilience work.

Explore our procurement and resilience capability →

Speak to an expert at Trace →

Where to begin

Start by separating your direct exposure from your indirect exposure, and take the indirect channel seriously, because it is almost certainly larger than the direct one and far less visible. Map your supply chain deeply enough to see where tariff and trade risk actually enters, then reprice your major sourcing decisions against current conditions rather than the assumptions they were originally made under.

From there, work the playbook in priority order: diversify where concentration creates real risk, rethink network and origin where it moves tariff exposure, set a resilience inventory posture for your critical inputs, and build the scenario planning that lets you stay ahead of a policy environment that will keep changing. Treat this as a capability to build rather than a crisis to survive, and the same volatility that threatens less-prepared competitors becomes an advantage.

The era of cheap, stable, predictable trade is not coming back on the old terms. Tariffs and fragmentation are part of the operating environment now. The businesses that respond with visibility, deliberate sourcing, and genuine agility will not just absorb the shock. They will be the ones their customers can rely on when others cannot.

Related reading: Supply Chain Resilience: Navigating Global Trade Tensions · Procurement · Strategy & Network Design

Supply Chain Transformation in Australian Government

Australian government supply chains are under more pressure, and more active reform, than at almost any point in the last decade. The forces are stacking on top of one another: a procurement framework that changed materially in late 2025, a sustained national focus on sovereign capability and resilience, the largest defence investment in a generation, and frontline services in health, aged care, and emergency response being asked to deliver more with budgets that will not stretch to match demand. Each of these is a supply chain question before it is anything else.

For the agencies and departments in the middle of it, this is a genuine transformation moment, not a tidy-up. The way government plans, sources, moves, sustains, and stocks the goods and services it relies on is being reshaped, and the organisations that treat that as a structural shift rather than a compliance exercise will be the ones that come out ahead.

This article is for public sector leaders, programme owners, and defence and agency executives thinking about how to transform their supply chains. It covers what transformation actually means in a government context, the forces driving it right now, why it is harder in the public sector than in the private, what good looks like, and how to deliver it without falling into the traps that catch so many public sector programmes.

What supply chain transformation means in government

It helps to be clear about scope, because in government the term gets used narrowly. Supply chain transformation is often reduced to procurement reform, how the agency buys, which contracts it lets, how it complies with the rules. Procurement matters enormously, and we will come to the reforms, but it is one element of a much larger picture.

A government supply chain is the full end-to-end system that gets capability and services to the point of need. For defence, that is sustainment, logistics, and the readiness of the force. For health and aged care, it is the flow of consumables, equipment, and the workforce that delivers care. For emergency services and policing, it is the evidence, equipment, and logistics that keep a statewide network functioning. Transformation touches all of it: network and facility design, inventory and sustainment, workforce planning and rostering, technology and data, supplier strategy, and resilience against disruption. Procurement sits inside that system, not above it.

Getting this scope right matters because the most expensive failures in government happen when one part is optimised in isolation. A procurement reform that lowers unit price but lengthens lead times, or a new facility that looks efficient on paper but ignores how the workforce actually operates, creates problems that cost far more than the saving. Transformation has to be designed across the whole chain.

The forces driving transformation now

Several pressures are converging, which is what makes this a transformation moment rather than business as usual.

Procurement reform is live and material. The Commonwealth Procurement Rules changed on 17 November 2025, and the changes are not cosmetic. The threshold for non-corporate Commonwealth entities on non-construction procurement rose from $80,000 to $125,000, the first lift to that threshold in a long time. More significantly, the rules now require non-corporate entities to prioritise Australian businesses, inviting only Australian businesses to tender for many non-panel procurements below the threshold, and only small and medium enterprises in certain cases once Indigenous Procurement Policy priorities are met. Ethical conduct has become an explicit factor in the value-for-money assessment, with officials now expected to make reasonable enquiries into a supplier's labour, work health and safety, and environmental practices. Alongside the rules, a publicly searchable Supplier Portal is being rolled out, identifying whether a supplier is an SME, an Australian business, an Indigenous business, or women-owned, and it becomes available to all businesses from July 2026.

The practical effect is that procurement is being used more deliberately as an economic and social lever, prioritising local industry, SMEs, Indigenous businesses, and ethical supply chains, while still anchored on value for money. For agencies, that means supplier strategies, market approaches, and supply chain transparency all need to be reconsidered, not just the paperwork.

Sovereign capability and resilience are now standing priorities. The disruptions of recent years, followed by sustained geopolitical volatility, have moved supply chain resilience from a periodic concern to a permanent one. Government is increasingly focused on the supply chains that matter most to national interest, fuel, critical minerals, pharmaceuticals, food, defence materiel, and on understanding dependencies several tiers deep rather than just at the first supplier. Friendshoring, nearshoring, and sovereign manufacturing are reshaping network design decisions that used to be made on cost alone. We have written about this shift in the context of navigating global trade tensions, and it is now embedded in how government thinks about supply.

Defence sustainment is the quiet half of the investment. The Australian Defence Force runs one of the country's largest and most complex supply chains, with billions invested annually in procurement, sustainment, and logistics, and that performance is directly tied to operational readiness and national security. The headline investment goes to acquisition, but acquisition wins battles and sustainment wins wars, as we have argued in our work on defence supply chains. Transforming the sustainment supply chain, spares, MRO, inventory, and the n-tier supplier base behind it, is where a great deal of the real value sits.

Frontline service delivery is straining the operational supply chain. Health, aged care, and emergency services are facing rising demand against constrained budgets, and much of the pressure lands on operational supply chains: the consumables, equipment, logistics, and workforce that keep services running. Doing more with the same requires the supply chain to work harder and smarter, which is a transformation problem.

Technology and data are finally usable. N-tier visibility, AI-enabled forecasting, scenario modelling, and analytics platforms have matured to the point where they can genuinely improve government supply chains, provided they are deployed on top of sound process rather than as a substitute for it.

Why it is harder in government than in the private sector

Supply chain transformation is difficult anywhere. In government it carries an extra layer of constraint that private sector playbooks do not account for, and ignoring that is why imported corporate approaches so often stall.

Probity and accountability sit over everything. Decisions must be defensible, transparent, and compliant with the procurement framework, which rightly limits the speed and flexibility available. Budget cycles are annual and often siloed, which makes multi-year transformation investment genuinely hard to fund and sustain. Legacy systems and entrenched processes are common, and replacing them is slow. Risk aversion is structural, because the consequences of a visible failure are political as well as operational. And machinery-of-government changes can reshape responsibilities midway through a programme.

None of this is an argument against transformation. It is an argument for transformation designed specifically for the public sector environment, with business cases that survive scrutiny, change approaches built for risk-averse cultures, and delivery that respects probity rather than treating it as an obstacle.

What good transformation looks like

The principles that separate successful government supply chain transformation from the programmes that disappoint are consistent.

It is strategy-led, not technology-led. The starting point is the operational and policy outcome the supply chain exists to deliver, not the platform someone wants to buy. Technology is sequenced in to accelerate a sound process, never to substitute for one.

It is built on a business case that withstands scrutiny. Public investment demands a defensible case, complete on costs, honest on benefits, clear on risk, and proportionate to the scale of the decision. This is the discipline that gets transformation funded and keeps it funded, and it is the same rigour the government's own investment frameworks demand.

It sees the whole chain, several tiers deep. Real visibility means going beyond the first supplier to map dependencies, choke points, and concentration risk through the n-tier base. For resilience and sustainment alike, the risks that matter usually sit below the surface.

It designs resilience and sovereignty in, rather than bolting them on. Network design, supplier strategy, and inventory decisions now have to weigh resilience and sovereign capability alongside cost, because the cost of fragility has been demonstrated too many times to ignore.

It embeds capability rather than dependency. The best transformation leaves the agency more capable, with its people equipped to run the new model, not permanently reliant on external support to operate what was built.

And it is delivered with change management built for the public sector. Stakeholder engagement, probity, and a culture that is necessarily cautious all have to be worked with, not around.

The Australian context

The structure of this country sharpens all of it. Australia's geography, long distances, dispersed population, and remote operations, makes logistics and network design materially harder and more expensive than in compact markets, and that is before the demands of operating across a continent and a region. The trade exposure is real, with a small number of partners accounting for a large share of both imports and exports, which is precisely why sovereign capability and resilience have moved up the agenda. And the defence environment, in an era of significant capability investment and close alliance commitments, places sustainment and supply chain readiness at the centre of national security rather than the periphery.

This is the environment in which Australian government supply chains are being transformed, and it rewards approaches grounded in the local reality rather than imported wholesale.

How Trace Consultants can help

At Trace Consultants, supply chain transformation for government and defence is core to what we do, and we bring credentials to it that are genuinely public-sector, not borrowed from corporate work. Our government and defence practice combines deep supply chain expertise with direct experience inside the system, including leadership that has served as a Director in the Office of Supply Chain Resilience within the Department of the Prime Minister and Cabinet, and practitioners with Australian Defence Force logistics backgrounds. Our team holds defence clearances and we are an approved provider on government panels, which means we can engage quickly and work on sensitive and classified programmes.

We transform across the whole chain, not just procurement. From network and facility design through sustainment, inventory, workforce planning, and resilience, we work end-to-end, so improvements in one part do not create problems in another. Our strategy and network design work anchors transformation in the operational outcome the supply chain exists to deliver.

We navigate the new procurement environment. We help agencies translate the reformed Commonwealth Procurement Rules into supplier strategies and market approaches that prioritise Australian business, SMEs, and ethical supply chains while still delivering value for money. Our procurement practice links procurement to supply chain strategy rather than treating it as a standalone compliance task.

We map risk and build resilience several tiers deep. Using n-tier analysis, scenario modelling, and contingency planning, we uncover the dependencies and choke points that first-tier views miss, and design the sovereign capability and resilience that national interest now demands. This is the work behind our perspective on building supply chain resilience for government.

We deliver transformation that survives the public sector environment. We build business cases that withstand scrutiny, change approaches suited to risk-averse cultures, and capability that stays with the agency after we leave.

Explore our Government & Defence capability →

Speak to an expert at Trace →

Where to begin

If you are an agency leader weighing transformation, start with the outcome and the end-to-end picture rather than the part that is easiest to point at. Map your supply chain beyond the first tier to see where the real risk and cost sit, and be honest about which pressures, procurement reform, resilience, sustainment, service-delivery strain, are most material to your mandate.

From there, build a business case proportionate to the decision, sequence technology behind sound process, and design the change for the environment you actually operate in rather than the one a corporate playbook assumes. Above all, treat probity and accountability as design parameters, not obstacles, because a transformation that cannot be defended will not be sustained.

Government supply chains are being reshaped by forces that are not going away. The agencies that approach this as a structural transformation, designed for the public sector and grounded in the Australian context, will deliver better services, stronger resilience, and better value for the public money behind them. That is the prize, and it is well within reach.

‍