What was going wrong
The company bought goods and services from many different suppliers, across many different categories. On its own, that is completely normal. The problem was how the buying actually happened.
Most purchases were arranged through long email threads, personal spreadsheets and one-to-one conversations with suppliers. Each buyer had their own way of working. When someone needed a price, they contacted the suppliers they happened to know, waited for replies, and saved the answers wherever was convenient.
Day to day, this caused three problems:
- There was no standard way to ask suppliers for a price. Every request looked different, so every reply looked different too.
- Comparing suppliers was slow and unreliable, because the quotes did not line up — different quantities, different delivery dates, different payment terms.
- The procurement team spent most of its time chasing quotes and sending follow-up emails, and very little time actually negotiating better deals.
Management had a strong feeling that the company was paying more than it needed to. But nobody could point to where the savings were, or how big they might be. Without clear information, there was nothing solid to act on.
Does this sound familiar?
- Supplier quotes live in inboxes and personal spreadsheets.
- Two people can buy the same item and pay very different prices.
- Nobody can quickly say how many suppliers you use for one category.
- Your team spends more time chasing replies than negotiating.
How Procuriva fixed it, step by step
Procuriva did not start by changing suppliers, and we did not start by telling the team they were doing it wrong. We started by understanding how the company actually bought — not how a policy document said it should buy.
We looked at the existing supplier list, what was being bought and how often, the history of quotes received, and the commercial terms already agreed: prices, discounts, delivery and payment terms. The first goal was simple — make the buying visible. You cannot improve what you cannot see.
Once the picture was clear, we worked through seven steps.
Brought all supplier information into one place
We gathered supplier and category details from emails, spreadsheets and the finance system into one tidy list. For the first time, the team could see who they bought from, what they bought, and roughly how much.
Created one standard way to ask for quotes
We set up a standard request for quotation (RFQ) and a simple process around it. Every supplier now receives the same questions, in the same format, with the same deadline — so every answer can be compared fairly.
Spotted where fewer suppliers would work better
In some categories, several suppliers were providing almost the same thing. We showed where buying from fewer, well-chosen suppliers could bring better prices and much simpler management.
Checked quotes against the market
We compared the prices being quoted with market rates and with what the company had paid before. This is called benchmarking. It shows whether a quote is fair, or whether there is room to push back.
Ran fair, competitive sourcing rounds
For the categories with the most potential, we invited several suitable suppliers to bid on exactly the same terms. Fair competition is one of the most reliable ways to get a better price without damaging relationships.
Negotiated prices and payment terms
With clear information in hand, we negotiated not only on price, but also on payment terms — how long the company has to pay an invoice — along with delivery and service commitments.
Built a simple way to compare and rate suppliers
We created a supplier comparison and evaluation framework: a scorecard that looks at price, quality, delivery, reliability and service together. Decisions are now based on the whole picture, not just the lowest number on a page.
The goal was never just to find the cheapest quote. It was to help the company make better buying decisions, based on better information.
What changed, side by side
- Emails and spreadsheets
- Quotes that don't line up
- Decisions by guesswork
- One supplier view
- Standard RFQ
- Benchmarked quotes
- Informed decisions
| Area | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Asking for prices | Every buyer asked in their own way, by email or phone | One standard RFQ, sent the same way to every supplier |
| Comparing quotes | Quotes did not line up, so comparison was guesswork | Like-for-like quotes, scored against clear criteria |
| Supplier information | Scattered across inboxes and personal spreadsheets | One organised list of suppliers and categories |
| The team's time | Spent chasing replies and following up | Spent negotiating and managing suppliers |
| Management's view | A feeling that savings existed somewhere | A clear view of where money goes, and why |
What the business gained
The company ended up with a buying process that is structured, repeatable and easy to follow. Suppliers are easier to see and compare, and management has far more control over commercial decisions.
Just as importantly, the procurement team got its time back. Less time goes on admin and follow-up emails, and more goes on the work that actually saves money: negotiating well and managing suppliers properly.
Better supplier visibility
The team can see every supplier, what each one provides, and how they compare.
More competitive quotes
Suppliers now compete on equal terms, which puts natural pressure on price.
A stronger negotiating position
Walking into a negotiation with market data and comparable quotes changes the conversation.
One standard sourcing process
Everyone follows the same steps, so results no longer depend on who handles the purchase.
Clearer view for management
Leaders can see how buying decisions are made, and the reasons behind them.
Time back for the team
Less chasing and admin means more time for the work that adds value.
The Procuriva difference
We did not come in and tell the client that everything they were doing was wrong. Most teams are doing their best with the time and tools they have.
We first took the time to understand how they worked. Then we built a procurement process around their business — not the other way around. That is why the new process stuck: it fitted the way the company already worked, and made it better.
The terms in this story, in plain English
- Strategic sourcing
- Choosing suppliers carefully and on purpose — using data, fair competition and long-term value — instead of simply re-ordering from whoever you used last time.
- RFQ (request for quotation)
- A standard document sent to suppliers asking them to quote a price for a specific item or service, on specific terms, by a specific date.
- Benchmarking
- Comparing a price or a contract term with what the market, or your own past purchases, suggest is fair.
- Supplier consolidation
- Buying a category from fewer suppliers, so each relationship carries more volume and more negotiating weight.
- Payment terms
- The agreed amount of time you have to pay a supplier's invoice after you receive it.
