What was going wrong
The company worked with hundreds of suppliers for relatively small purchases — office supplies, spare parts, small services, one-off items and so on.
Looked at one by one, none of these purchases seemed important. A small amount here, a slightly bigger one there. Nobody would ever hold a meeting about any single one of them.
But added together, they made up a meaningful part of the company's total procurement spend for the year. And because each purchase was small, none of them ever got proper attention.
In practice, this is what was happening:
- Different suppliers were charging different prices for very similar products.
- Buying was spread thinly across so many suppliers that the company had no real buying power with any of them.
- Employees usually bought from whichever supplier was quickest or easiest at that moment — not necessarily the one offering the best value.
This is a classic example of what procurement teams call tail spend: the long list of small, low-value purchases that sits outside a company's main supplier agreements, and quietly leaks money.
Does this sound familiar?
- Your supplier list is long, and many names on it are used only once or twice a year.
- Similar items are bought from different suppliers at different prices.
- Staff place quick one-off orders because it is faster than asking.
- Nobody can tell you the total you spend on the “small stuff”.
How Procuriva fixed it, step by step
The obvious fix would have been to cut the supplier list overnight. We did not do that. Removing suppliers without understanding why people use them usually just pushes the buying somewhere else.
Instead, Procuriva started by analysing the buying pattern — looking across thousands of small purchases to see what was really going on. Then we acted on what we found.
Found duplicate suppliers
The company was often using several suppliers for the same thing — and sometimes the same supplier set up twice under slightly different names. Each of these was a clear chance to consolidate.
Listed the items bought most often
Some small items were ordered again and again. Frequent purchases are where a small saving on each order adds up the fastest.
Measured the price differences
We compared what the company paid for similar products from different suppliers. The gaps showed exactly where money was leaking out.
Flagged small, frequent orders
Lots of tiny orders cost time and admin as well as money. These low-value, high-frequency purchases were strong candidates for simpler, pre-agreed ways of buying.
Found buying outside the preferred suppliers
We identified purchases made away from any agreed supplier, which usually means paying full price with no agreed terms at all.
Grouped similar needs and went to market together
We grouped similar requirements into categories and asked suppliers to quote for the combined volume. A supplier quoting for a whole year's worth of an item offers a very different price from one quoting for a single order.
Set up preferred suppliers
Where it made sense, we reduced the number of suppliers in each category and agreed preferred suppliers, so employees know exactly where to buy each item, and on what terms.
Rather than trying to remove every small supplier overnight, we looked at the purchasing pattern first. The pattern tells you where to act.
What changed, side by side
- Scattered suppliers
- Inconsistent pricing
- Reactive purchasing
- Category visibility
- Competitive sourcing
- Preferred suppliers
- Better control
| Area | Before | After |
|---|---|---|
| Suppliers | Hundreds of suppliers, many used only once | A shorter list of preferred suppliers per category |
| Prices | Different prices for similar items | Agreed prices, based on combined volume |
| How people bought | From whoever was easiest at the time | From a clear, preferred supplier for each item |
| Visibility | Nobody could see the total | Spending grouped and visible by category |
| Way of working | Reactive, order by order | Planned, category by category |
What the business gained
The business gained real control over spending that had been scattered and hard to see.
More importantly, the way the team thought about buying changed. Procurement became proactive instead of reactive.
“Who can supply this today?”
“Who is the right supplier for this category?”
Control over scattered spending
Small purchases are now grouped, visible and managed by category.
Fairer, more consistent prices
Similar items are bought at agreed prices, not at whatever a supplier charges that day.
Fewer, better suppliers
A shorter supplier list is easier to manage and gives the company more buying power.
Simpler buying for staff
Employees know where to buy each item, so they no longer have to hunt for a supplier.
Planned, not last-minute, purchasing
The team plans ahead by category instead of reacting one order at a time.
A clear view of the “small stuff”
The combined cost of small purchases is finally visible, so it can be managed.
The Procuriva difference
Tail spend rarely looks like a major problem when you look at one purchase. That is exactly why it gets ignored.
We look at the pattern behind thousands of purchases. That is usually where the opportunity starts — and where money has been quietly slipping away.
The terms in this story, in plain English
- Tail spend
- The many small, low-value purchases that sit outside a company's main supplier agreements. Each one is minor; together they add up.
- Category
- A group of similar things a company buys — for example office supplies, IT accessories or cleaning services.
- Supplier rationalisation
- Reducing the number of suppliers to a sensible, well-chosen few, so each one is easier to manage and more worth negotiating with.
- Preferred supplier
- A supplier the company has chosen and agreed terms with for a category, so employees know where to buy.
- Consolidated volume
- Many small orders combined into one larger requirement, so suppliers can offer a better price.
