Operating artefact
The behaviour-change levers
We map spend leakage to a few levers procurement can actually control: convenience, decision rights, and consequence design.
Dashboards help only when they trigger weekly actions with owners.
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
Decentralised organisationTurned spend governance from reporting into a working system with pathways, owners, and weekly actions.
Anonymised case study. Focus: changing behaviour by designing incentives and the front door, not by shipping dashboards.
Business process schema
Each case is framed as an operating change: pressure, process, evidence, and outcome. That keeps the example tied to what a prospect needs to fix.
Pressure
Dashboards existed but did not change decisions or behaviours
Process move
Start with the front door: intake and guided buying pathways for top request types
Evidence
Guided buying pathways + intake routing rules for top categories
Outcome
Turned spend governance from reporting into a working system with pathways, owners, and weekly actions.
Business example
Current state
Work was visible, but not controlled
The compliant path was slower than the workaround path, so leakage was rational
Operating move
Make ownership inspectable
Define decision rights and a light governance cadence (who decides, when, with what evidence)
Management view
Track the work that changes decisions
Fewer workarounds as the compliant path became faster and clearer
Delivery evidence
Frameworks and artefacts
Operating assets used to align sponsors, delivery owners, and implementation teams around the same decisions.
Operating artefact
Guided buying and intake pathways
A simple routing map that makes the compliant path the easiest path, with clear escalation routes for true urgency.
The aim is resilience: when things change, the pathways adapt without creating workarounds.
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 to 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 |
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
Related service
Continue into the service page tied to this example, or compare the wider advisory offer.