Illustrative Case · Specialty Chemicals
A representative composite based on patterns we see across comparable mid-market manufacturers. Figures are illustrative. No individual client is depicted.
$6.2M certified to the P&L, plus $2.4M in annualized run rate.
Days payable moved from 38 to 47.
Classification accuracy rose from 68% to 94%.
Maturity Curve: Stage 2 to Stage 3, Governed Procurement, in 14 weeks.
The situation
The footprint outran the intelligence.
A decade of acquisitions grew the company to seven manufacturing sites, and procurement never caught up. Three overlapping vendor masters, several inherited chart of accounts conventions, and a category structure no two functions read the same way meant the most basic question (how much do we spend, with whom, on what) got a different answer depending on who was asked.
The cost showed up in the category review. Procurement and finance arrived with different numbers for the same suppliers, so meetings were spent reconciling instead of deciding. The team was strong and the ERP was modern. What was missing was a trustworthy layer of spend intelligence underneath it.
The diagnosis
A Stage 2 floor, set by two dimensions.
On our Procurement Intelligence Maturity Curve, the organization sat at Stage 2, Contested Spend. The signature of Stage 2 isn't missing data. It's disputed data. Maturity is set by the weakest dimension, and here two held the floor: Classification Integrity and Financial Reconciliation.
- 31% of addressable spend sat uncategorized. The two largest "categories" were Miscellaneous and Professional Services.
- Procurement reported $9.4M in savings. Only $3.1M could be certified, and the gap cost the function credibility with leadership.
- The vendor master carried about 14,200 records, an estimated 22% of them duplicate or dormant.
- Category managers spent close to 30% of their time validating data instead of running their categories.
Scoring is floor based, so the engagement targeted the binding constraints rather than the comfortable strengths. The move shown runs from Stage 2, Contested Spend, to Stage 3, Governed Procurement.
What we did
Fix the floor, not the symptoms.
We ran a short diagnostic, then a focused taxonomy and vendor master remediation aimed at the two dimensions holding the floor, examined from three angles.
Operating flow
Rebuilt the category taxonomy so every dollar resolved to one category and one owner, then remapped all addressable spend onto it.
Enabling technology
Consolidated three vendor masters into one governed record set, with onboarding controls that stop duplicates from returning.
Adoption in practice
Installed a savings validation method both functions agreed to, and a single source of spend truth they now run category reviews from.
The outcome
Stage 3 in fourteen weeks, measured three ways.
Visibility
Uncategorized spend fell from 31% to 6%, and both functions now reconcile to a single spend cube. The category review became a decision meeting again.
Savings
$6.2M of previously disputed savings was certified to the P&L, and supplier consolidation unlocked a further $2.4M in annualized run rate.
Cash
Standardized payment terms lifted days payable from 38 to 47, releasing about $5.1M in a single cycle.
What made it stick
Controls, not cleanup.
A one time data scrub decays within a quarter. What held here was structural: onboarding rules that block duplicate vendors, one agreed method for validating savings, and one spend cube everyone works from. The team got its capacity back and now spends it running categories, not checking numbers.
Next step
Wondering where your spend sits on the curve?
A short conversation is the fastest way to find out.
