Procurement & Supply Chain
4–6 weeks (design) + 6–10 weeks (delivery)
Spend Management: From Visibility to Behaviour Change
The organisation had spend visibility, but behaviour did not change. Stakeholders still bought off-contract when the compliant path was slower, and procurement was seen as a gate rather than a partner. We redesigned the front door, clarified decision rights, and implemented a cadence that made compliance the easiest option.
#Spend management
#Guided buying
#Policy
#Adoption
#Cadence
Related service
Problem
- • Dashboards existed but did not change decisions or behaviours
- • The compliant path was slower than the workaround path, so leakage was rational
- • Policy exceptions were handled ad hoc with no learning loop
- • Preferred suppliers were not embedded in workflows, so guidance lived in slideware
- • Post go-live, adoption friction was not measured and fixes were slow
Approach
- • Start with the front door: intake and guided buying pathways for top request types
- • Define decision rights and a light governance cadence (who decides, when, with what evidence)
- • Embed preferred suppliers and policy guidance into the workflow, not documents
- • Make exceptions measurable: reason codes, SLAs, and a weekly root-cause review
- • Bridge business and vendors/SIs: translate operating intent into configuration and integrations
- • Use AI/automation for admin reduction (request summaries, routing suggestions) with human accountability
Deliverables
- • Guided buying pathways + intake routing rules for top categories
- • Policy-to-workflow mapping (what is enforced, what is guided, what is escalated)
- • Exception model: reasons, owners, SLAs, and weekly actions
- • Preferred supplier embedding plan (catalogue, templates, and communications)
- • Adoption sprint plan + KPI pack and stabilisation checklist after go-live
Outcomes
- • Fewer workarounds as the compliant path became faster and clearer
- • More consistent decision-making through a weekly cadence and explicit owners
- • Improved adoption and reduced friction post go-live via measured fixes
- • A resilient model that could adapt to change without reintroducing leakage
KPIs we tracked
- • Preferred channel usage (directional, with clear definitions)
- • Policy exception rate (and top reasons)
- • Time-to-first-action for requests (intake health)
- • Savings delivered vs planned (with confidence rules)
- • Stakeholder satisfaction signals (escalations, turnaround time)
Baseline → target KPIs
Spend outcomes improve when pathways, policy, and cadence work together. We use these KPIs to drive weekly actions and remove friction points.
| Metric | Typical baseline | Target state |
|---|---|---|
Off-path buying (workarounds / off-contract) | Common in categories where the compliant path is slow | Reduced via guided buying, clear escalation routes, and enforcement where needed |
Policy exception rate | Exceptions handled ad hoc with no learning loop | Measured reasons with owners and weekly root-cause actions |
Preferred supplier usage (directional) | Not embedded in workflows; guidance in slideware | Embedded in pathways and tracked with clear definitions |
Frameworks and artefacts
The behaviour-change levers
We map spend leakage to a few levers procurement can actually control: convenience, decision rights, and consequence design.
Guided buying and intake pathways
A simple routing map that makes the compliant path the easiest path, with clear escalation routes for true urgency.
Timeline
4–6 weeks (design) + 6–10 weeks (delivery)
- • Design (Weeks 1–3): baseline leakage, define policy and pathways, agree governance cadence and owners
- • Delivery (Weeks 4–6): implement guided buying, preferred suppliers, and exception handling rules
- • Delivery (Weeks 7–10): adoption sprint, KPI pack, and stabilisation after go-live
- • Scale (Weeks 11–16): extend to more categories and refine based on measured friction points