Designing and Implementing a Sourcing Strategy: Balancing Service, Reliability, Quality, Responsiveness and Cost

For many organisations, sourcing strategy has historically been treated as a procurement exercise—something revisited every few years when contracts expire or budgets come under pressure. The focus has often been on reducing unit rates, aggregating spend, and extracting savings through negotiation.

That approach is increasingly misaligned with the realities of modern supply chains.

Across Australia and New Zealand, organisations are operating in environments defined by uncertainty: global supply volatility, labour shortages, infrastructure constraints, climate impacts, regulatory scrutiny, and rising service expectations from customers and communities. In this context, sourcing decisions made purely on cost often create unintended consequences—service failures, supply interruptions, quality degradation, and over-reliance on fragile supplier relationships.

A contemporary sourcing strategy must do more. It must deliberately balance service, reliability, quality, responsiveness, and cost, while aligning with broader business objectives and risk appetite. It must also recognise that, in some markets, achieving this balance requires proactive investment in suppliers, supply chains, or even internal capabilities to ensure resilience and competitive tension over the long term.

This article explores how organisations can design and implement sourcing strategies that deliver sustainable value rather than short-term savings. It also outlines how Trace Consultants supports organisations across Australia and New Zealand to move beyond transactional sourcing and build robust, future-ready sourcing strategies.

Why Sourcing Strategy Has Become a Strategic Priority

Sourcing decisions shape far more than procurement outcomes. They influence operational performance, customer experience, risk exposure, and organisational agility.

When sourcing strategies are poorly designed, the impacts are felt well beyond procurement teams. Operations struggle with unreliable supply. Frontline teams compensate for service failures. Working capital increases as buffers are added to manage risk. Leadership teams find themselves responding reactively to issues that could have been avoided through better sourcing design.

Conversely, organisations that approach sourcing strategically are better positioned to absorb shocks, respond to demand volatility, and adapt as markets change. They understand that sourcing is not just about who they buy from, but how supply ecosystems are structured and governed.

In many sectors—retail, manufacturing, healthcare, infrastructure, energy, resources, and services—this shift is already underway. Sourcing is increasingly viewed as a lever for resilience and performance, not just cost reduction.

The Five Dimensions of an Effective Sourcing Strategy

At the core of a strong sourcing strategy is the deliberate balancing of five interconnected dimensions. Optimising one at the expense of the others almost always creates risk.

1. Service

Service refers to the supplier’s ability to meet operational requirements consistently. This may include on-time delivery, completeness of supply, responsiveness to issues, and alignment with operational rhythms.

High service performance is particularly critical in environments where downstream operations are time-sensitive or customer-facing. In these contexts, sourcing strategies that prioritise low cost without adequate service safeguards often shift cost elsewhere in the organisation through rework, expediting, or lost revenue.

2. Reliability

Reliability is about consistency over time. It reflects the supplier’s ability to perform not just when conditions are stable, but when they are disrupted.

Reliable supply is shaped by factors such as financial stability, capacity management, geographic footprint, workforce resilience, and exposure to upstream risks. A sourcing strategy that relies heavily on a single, low-cost supplier may appear efficient until disruption occurs—and then the cost of failure becomes apparent.

3. Quality

Quality extends beyond product specifications or service outputs. It includes compliance, safety, process discipline, and the ability to meet regulatory and organisational standards.

In many industries, quality failures carry significant downstream consequences—operational shutdowns, safety incidents, reputational damage, or regulatory intervention. Sourcing strategies must therefore account for the true cost of poor quality, not just headline pricing.

4. Responsiveness

Responsiveness reflects how quickly suppliers can adapt to change—volume fluctuations, specification changes, demand surges, or unforeseen events.

As markets become more volatile, responsiveness has become a differentiator. Sourcing strategies that prioritise rigid, lowest-cost supply often struggle to flex, forcing organisations to absorb volatility internally.

5. Cost

Cost remains a critical dimension, but it must be considered holistically. Total cost of ownership—including inventory, risk buffers, management overhead, and disruption costs—often tells a very different story from unit price alone.

Leading organisations design sourcing strategies that optimise total cost while preserving service, reliability, quality, and responsiveness.

Moving Beyond Single-Supplier Thinking

One of the most common sourcing risks observed across Australian and New Zealand organisations is over-reliance on single suppliers. In some cases, this is the result of deliberate consolidation strategies aimed at leveraging scale. In others, it emerges organically as organisations default to incumbent relationships over time.

While single-supplier models can deliver efficiencies in stable markets, they introduce significant risk when conditions change. Loss of competitive tension, limited leverage, and exposure to supplier-specific disruptions are common consequences.

As a result, many organisations are revisiting multi-supplier and dual-supplier strategies as part of their broader sourcing approach.

Designing Effective Dual-Supplier Strategies

A two-supplier (or dual-source) strategy is often positioned as a way to reduce risk and maintain competitive tension. However, simply appointing two suppliers is rarely sufficient on its own.

An effective dual-supplier strategy requires deliberate design across several dimensions.

Ensuring Both Suppliers Are Viable at Scale

A common pitfall in dual-sourcing is allocating the majority of volume to one supplier and a token share to the second. Over time, the secondary supplier becomes commercially unviable, loses capability, or deprioritises the relationship—undermining the intent of the strategy.

Sustainable dual-supplier models typically require sufficient volume allocation to ensure both suppliers can invest, maintain capability, and remain competitive.

Balancing Domestic and Global Supply

In some categories, particularly those exposed to global volatility, organisations adopt a hybrid model—pairing a global supplier with a domestic or regional supplier.

While global suppliers may offer cost advantages, domestic suppliers often provide faster response times, greater visibility, and reduced exposure to international disruption. The balance between the two is a strategic choice that should reflect risk appetite, service requirements, and demand variability.

Investing in Supplier Capability

In specialised or constrained markets, viable second suppliers may not exist at the outset. In these cases, organisations may need to invest in developing supplier capability—through volume commitments, co-investment, process standardisation, or technical support.

While this requires upfront effort, it can pay dividends over time by creating genuine competition and resilience where none previously existed.

Designing Clear Allocation and Switching Rules

Dual-supplier strategies are most effective when allocation logic is explicit. This may include defined volume splits, performance-based allocation, or surge capacity arrangements.

Clear rules reduce ambiguity, maintain discipline, and enable faster response when conditions change.

When Supply Chains Need to Be Built or Strengthened

In some markets, particularly specialised or capital-intensive categories, organisations cannot rely on existing supplier ecosystems to deliver the balance of service, reliability, and cost they require.

In these situations, sourcing strategy extends beyond supplier selection into supply chain enablement.

This may include:

• Supporting suppliers to expand capacity or geographic coverage
• Standardising specifications to lower barriers to entry
• Aggregating demand across business units to improve commercial viability
• Investing in shared infrastructure or systems
• Providing longer-term commitments to enable supplier investment

While these approaches move beyond traditional procurement boundaries, they are increasingly necessary in markets where supply concentration or capability gaps exist.

Organisations that take a long-term view of sourcing recognise that competitive supply chains do not always exist by default—they often need to be deliberately shaped.

Assessing When Vertical Integration Makes Sense

In some cases, organisations consider vertical integration as an alternative to external sourcing. This may involve bringing manufacturing, logistics, maintenance, or service delivery in-house.

Vertical integration is not inherently good or bad—it is a strategic decision that must be assessed objectively.

When Vertical Integration May Be Appropriate

Vertical integration can make sense when:

• Supply markets are highly concentrated or unreliable
• Quality or safety risks are unacceptable
• The capability is strategically critical to the organisation
• Long-term demand is stable and predictable
• The organisation can achieve scale and efficiency internally

In these scenarios, internalising capability may reduce risk, improve control, and deliver long-term value.

When Vertical Integration Introduces Risk

Conversely, vertical integration can increase risk when:

• Demand is volatile or uncertain
• The capability requires ongoing innovation that the organisation cannot sustain
• Fixed costs reduce flexibility
• Internal operations become insulated from market discipline

Many organisations underestimate the complexity and cost of managing vertically integrated operations, particularly over time.

Hybrid Models and Strategic Optionality

Increasingly, organisations are adopting hybrid models—retaining some internal capability while continuing to source externally. This can preserve optionality, maintain market intelligence, and provide a hedge against disruption.

The key is to evaluate vertical integration decisions with the same rigour applied to external sourcing, grounded in data rather than intuition.

Governance, Contracts and Operating Models Matter

Even the best-designed sourcing strategy can fail if governance and operating models are weak.

Clear accountability, performance management, and escalation mechanisms are essential to balancing service, reliability, quality, responsiveness, and cost over time.

Effective sourcing governance typically includes:

• Clearly defined service levels and performance metrics
• Regular performance and risk reviews
• Transparent issue resolution processes
• Commercial mechanisms that reward performance and manage downside risk
• Alignment between procurement, operations, and finance

Sourcing strategy is not a one-off event. It is an ongoing discipline that requires active management.

Common Pitfalls in Sourcing Strategy Design

Across many organisations, similar challenges emerge repeatedly:

• Over-weighting cost at the expense of service and reliability
• Underestimating the effort required to sustain dual-supplier models
• Failing to invest in supplier capability where markets are constrained
• Allowing sourcing decisions to be driven by short-term budget cycles
• Treating sourcing as a procurement issue rather than a business decision

Avoiding these pitfalls requires a structured, cross-functional approach.

How Trace Consultants Can Help

Trace Consultants supports organisations across Australia and New Zealand to design and implement sourcing strategies that deliver balanced, sustainable outcomes.

Our approach is grounded in objectivity, data, and operational reality. We work alongside executive teams, procurement leaders, and operational stakeholders to ensure sourcing strategies align with how the business actually operates—not just how contracts are written.

Our Support Typically Includes:

• Sourcing strategy development aligned to business objectives and risk appetite
• Category and market analysis to understand supplier dynamics and constraints
• Design of dual-supplier and multi-supplier strategies
• Assessment of domestic versus global sourcing trade-offs
• Evaluation of vertical integration and hybrid operating models
• Development of supplier investment and enablement strategies
• Design of governance, performance management, and operating models
• Support through implementation and transition

Importantly, we are independent and solution-agnostic. Our focus is on helping organisations make informed decisions that balance service, reliability, quality, responsiveness, and cost—both now and into the future.

Final Thoughts

Designing and implementing an effective sourcing strategy is no longer about choosing the cheapest supplier. It is about making deliberate trade-offs, understanding risk, and shaping supply ecosystems that support long-term performance.

For organisations across Australia and New Zealand, the challenge is not whether to balance service, reliability, quality, responsiveness, and cost—but how to do so in a way that aligns with their unique operating context.

Those that invest in thoughtful, well-governed sourcing strategies will be better positioned to navigate uncertainty, maintain competitive tension, and deliver sustainable value over time.

‍

Procurement Reset Moments – Setting Up a War Room and Negotiating with Suppliers to Reduce Costs

Most procurement functions are built for steady-state optimisation. Category strategies are reviewed annually, contracts roll over, and savings are delivered incrementally through sourcing cycles and supplier management. In normal conditions, this approach works.

But every organisation eventually faces a procurement reset moment.

Margins compress. Volumes soften. Input costs rise faster than revenue. Capital tightens. Boards and executive teams demand immediate, material cost reduction rather than marginal gains. Suddenly, the usual pace and structure of procurement activity is no longer sufficient.

In these moments, organisations need a different approach – one that is more focused, more intensive, and more commercially assertive. This is where the concept of a procurement war room becomes relevant.

This article explores what procurement reset moments look like, how to set up a war room to respond effectively, and how to negotiate with suppliers to reduce costs while preserving long-term value and supply continuity.

What is a procurement reset moment?

A procurement reset moment is not simply a budget tightening exercise. It is a point at which the organisation recognises that existing commercial arrangements no longer reflect its financial reality or risk appetite.

Common triggers include:

• Sharp margin or profitability decline
• Revenue contraction or demand volatility
• Step-change increases in input or supplier costs
• Liquidity pressure or cash preservation requirements
• Post-merger or restructuring integration
• Board or shareholder-driven cost reduction mandates

What distinguishes a reset moment from normal cost management is urgency and scale. The organisation cannot wait for contracts to expire or savings to emerge gradually. It needs impact within weeks or months, not years.

Why traditional procurement approaches fall short

In reset conditions, traditional procurement operating models often struggle.

Category managers are incentivised to follow structured sourcing timelines. Governance processes are designed to manage risk rather than accelerate decisions. Negotiations are framed around annual increments rather than step-change outcomes.

This can lead to:

• Fragmented supplier engagement
• Inconsistent negotiation positions across categories
• Slow decision-making
• Missed opportunities to reset commercial baselines

A procurement war room is designed to cut through this inertia.

What is a procurement war room?

A procurement war room is a temporary, focused operating model designed to mobilise the organisation around rapid cost reduction and commercial reset.

It is not about aggressive or unethical behaviour. Nor is it about breaking contracts indiscriminately. At its best, a war room is structured, data-driven and disciplined.

Its purpose is to:

• Create a single source of truth on spend and savings opportunities
• Align executives, procurement, finance and operations
• Prioritise the highest-impact actions
• Enable faster, more confident negotiations with suppliers
• Track delivery rigorously

The war room is as much about governance and decision-making as it is about negotiation.

Setting up a procurement war room

Establishing clear objectives and boundaries

The first step is clarity. Organisations must be explicit about what they are trying to achieve and within what constraints.

Key questions include:

• What level of cost reduction is required, and by when?
• Which spend categories are in scope?
• What risks are unacceptable (service, safety, compliance)?
• What commercial levers are on the table?

Without clear boundaries, war rooms can either become unfocused or push too far, creating unintended consequences.

Building the right team

A procurement war room requires a cross-functional team with authority.

This typically includes:

• Senior procurement leadership
• Finance representatives to validate savings
• Operational leaders who understand service implications
• Legal or commercial advisors where required

Importantly, participants must be empowered to make decisions. War rooms fail when every decision needs to be escalated through layers of approval.

Creating a single source of truth on spend

Speed requires clarity. War rooms rely on rapid consolidation of spend data across categories, suppliers and contracts.

This often reveals:

• Fragmentation of spend across multiple suppliers
• Legacy pricing arrangements that have drifted over time
• Inconsistencies between contracted and actual rates
• Categories that have not been tested for years

Perfect data is not required. Directionally correct insight, validated quickly, is usually sufficient to prioritise action.

Identifying cost reduction levers

Not all savings come from price reductions. Effective war rooms consider a broad set of levers, including:

• Rate and price renegotiation
• Scope rationalisation or specification changes
• Volume consolidation
• Contract term and commitment trade-offs
• Indexation and escalation resets
• Demand reduction or consumption control

The most effective negotiations are those that combine multiple levers rather than focusing solely on headline price.

Prioritising suppliers and categories

War rooms must be selective. Trying to renegotiate everything at once dilutes effort and credibility.

Prioritisation should consider:

• Size of spend and savings potential
• Market conditions and supplier dependence
• Contractual flexibility
• Speed to impact
• Operational criticality

This allows the organisation to focus energy where it will have the greatest effect.

Preparing for supplier negotiations

Developing a clear commercial narrative

Suppliers are more likely to engage constructively when they understand the context.

A clear narrative typically includes:

• The organisation’s current financial and operating reality
• Why existing arrangements are no longer sustainable
• The desire for a collaborative reset rather than a one-sided demand
• The consequences of inaction

This does not mean sharing confidential information, but it does mean being honest about the need for change.

Understanding supplier economics

Effective negotiation requires understanding how suppliers make money.

Key considerations include:

• Cost drivers and margin structure
• Volume sensitivity
• Fixed versus variable cost components
• Capacity utilisation

This insight allows negotiators to propose changes that reduce cost while preserving supplier viability.

Aligning internal stakeholders before engaging suppliers

Nothing undermines negotiations faster than internal misalignment.

Before approaching suppliers, organisations must be aligned on:

• Target outcomes and fallback positions
• Acceptable trade-offs
• Decision authority during negotiations

This avoids mixed messages and last-minute reversals.

Conducting negotiations in a reset environment

Moving quickly, but respectfully

Reset negotiations often need to happen at pace. However, urgency does not justify poor behaviour.

Respectful, transparent engagement preserves long-term relationships and reduces the risk of supplier disengagement or retaliation.

Using data to anchor discussions

War rooms rely heavily on data to anchor negotiations. This might include:

• Historical pricing trends
• Benchmark ranges
• Volume and utilisation data
• Scope and service comparisons

Data shifts discussions from emotion to evidence.

Avoiding one-size-fits-all approaches

Different suppliers require different strategies. Strategic partners, sole suppliers and highly competitive markets should not be treated the same way.

A nuanced approach increases the likelihood of sustainable outcomes.

Managing risk during cost reduction negotiations

Cost reduction achieved at the expense of supply continuity or service quality is often false economy.

War rooms should actively manage risks such as:

• Supplier financial distress
• Reduced service levels
• Loss of innovation or support
• Contractual disputes

Risk assessment should be embedded into decision-making, not treated as an afterthought.

Tracking savings and ensuring delivery

One of the most common failures in procurement resets is overestimating realised savings.

Effective war rooms track:

• Gross versus net savings
• Timing of benefit realisation
• Dependencies and risks
• Ongoing compliance

Clear accountability and finance validation are essential to ensure that negotiated outcomes translate into real financial impact.

Transitioning out of the war room

Procurement war rooms are not meant to be permanent.

Once immediate objectives are achieved, organisations should:

• Embed learnings into category strategies
• Reset governance and performance metrics
• Strengthen supplier management disciplines
• Avoid slipping back into legacy behaviours

The goal is not just short-term relief, but a more resilient commercial model.

How Trace Consultants can help

Trace Consultants supports Australian and New Zealand organisations through procurement reset moments, helping them deliver rapid, sustainable cost reduction without compromising operational integrity.

Our support typically includes:

Rapid spend and opportunity assessment

Helping organisations quickly identify where the real savings opportunities lie and prioritise action.

War room design and mobilisation

Establishing governance, cadence, roles and reporting to enable focused decision-making and pace.

Negotiation strategy and support

Supporting preparation and execution of supplier negotiations with data-driven insight and clear commercial positioning.

Risk and impact management

Ensuring cost reduction initiatives consider service, supply and compliance risks alongside financial outcomes.

Independent, practical advice

Trace is not aligned to suppliers, vendors or sourcing platforms. Our advice is independent, commercially grounded and focused on outcomes.

When should organisations consider a procurement war room?

Common signals include:

• Board-level cost reduction targets with short timeframes
• Rapid deterioration in financial performance
• Limited confidence in existing procurement levers
• Fragmented supplier negotiations across the business
• Pressure to preserve cash and liquidity

In these situations, incremental improvement is rarely sufficient.

Final thoughts

Procurement reset moments are challenging, but they also create opportunity.

A well-designed procurement war room enables organisations to act decisively, negotiate from a position of clarity, and reset commercial arrangements for the realities ahead.

For Australian and New Zealand organisations facing cost pressure and uncertainty, the difference between success and failure often comes down to preparation, discipline and the ability to engage suppliers with credibility and intent.

When done well, procurement resets do more than reduce cost – they strengthen commercial capability for the long term.

‍

Procure to Pay Systems – From Business Case to Selection and Implementation

Across Australia and New Zealand, Procure to Pay (P2P) systems are increasingly seen as a cornerstone of modern finance and procurement operating models. When implemented well, they provide visibility over spend, enforce governance, streamline workflows, and reduce the administrative burden on teams. When implemented poorly, they can become expensive systems that frustrate users, slow down purchasing, and sit alongside spreadsheets and workarounds.

The challenge is not a lack of technology. The P2P market is crowded with solutions promising automation, compliance, analytics and control. The challenge lies in making the right decisions at the right time – starting with a clear business case, followed by disciplined system selection, and culminating in a well-governed implementation that genuinely changes how the organisation operates.

This article provides a practical, end-to-end perspective on Procure to Pay systems: what they are, why organisations invest in them, where programs typically fail, and how to approach business case development, selection and implementation in a way that delivers lasting value.

What is Procure to Pay – and why does it matter?

Procure to Pay refers to the end-to-end process that governs how organisations request, approve, purchase, receive, and pay for goods and services. In its simplest form, it spans:

• Requisitioning and approvals
• Purchase order creation and management
• Goods and service receipt
• Invoice processing and matching
• Payment and financial posting
• Reporting and compliance

In many organisations, these steps are fragmented across emails, spreadsheets, shared inboxes, finance systems and manual controls. This fragmentation creates risk, inefficiency and a lack of transparency over spend.

A well-designed P2P system provides a single workflow and system of record that connects procurement policy, supplier catalogues, approvals, invoicing and payment into one controlled process.

For CFOs, it improves visibility and financial control.
For procurement leaders, it supports compliance and category management.
For operational teams, it simplifies how they request and receive what they need.

The value is not just transactional efficiency – it is better decision-making across the organisation.

Why organisations invest in Procure to Pay systems

While each organisation has its own drivers, common motivations for investing in P2P systems include:

• Lack of visibility over spend, particularly indirect and services spend
• Poor compliance with procurement policies and preferred suppliers
• Manual invoice processing driving cost, delays and errors
• Limited ability to enforce approvals and delegations
• Supplier dissatisfaction due to late or inconsistent payment
• Audit findings related to controls and segregation of duties
• Pressure to reduce operating costs without cutting service

Increasingly, P2P systems are also seen as an enabler for broader transformation – supporting strategic procurement, better contract management, and more robust ESG and compliance reporting.

The reality: why many P2P programs underdeliver

Despite the clear value proposition, many Procure to Pay implementations fail to deliver their promised benefits. In some cases, organisations end up with a system that technically works, but is poorly adopted, heavily customised, or bypassed entirely.

Common causes include:

Weak or generic business cases

Business cases that focus purely on licence costs and high-level efficiency assumptions often fail to build genuine executive alignment or set realistic expectations.

Treating P2P as a technology project

When P2P is led solely as an IT implementation, process design, operating model alignment and change management are often underdone.

Selecting systems before defining requirements

Jumping to vendor demonstrations without clarity on what the organisation actually needs leads to mismatched solutions.

Over-customisation

Excessive tailoring to replicate legacy processes undermines standardisation, increases cost and complicates future upgrades.

Underestimating change management

P2P changes how people buy, approve and engage with suppliers. Without structured change and engagement, resistance is inevitable.

Understanding these pitfalls is critical before embarking on the journey.

Step 1: Building a robust Procure to Pay business case

A strong business case is the foundation of a successful P2P program. It does more than justify investment – it aligns stakeholders on what success looks like and why change is necessary.

Clarifying the problem to be solved

Effective business cases start with a clear articulation of current pain points, supported by evidence rather than anecdotes. This might include:

• Process mapping to identify inefficiencies and duplication
• Analysis of invoice volumes, touchpoints and exception rates
• Spend visibility assessments, particularly for indirect categories
• Compliance gaps against procurement policies and delegations
• Audit findings or risk exposures

The goal is to create a shared understanding of the current state and the cost of doing nothing.

Defining benefits beyond cost savings

While efficiency savings are important, P2P business cases should also capture qualitative and strategic benefits, such as:

• Improved governance and control
• Faster cycle times for requisition to payment
• Better supplier relationships
• Stronger data for procurement and finance decision-making
• Reduced reliance on key individuals and workarounds

These benefits are often more durable than short-term headcount reductions and resonate strongly with executive stakeholders.

Establishing realistic assumptions

One of the most common weaknesses in P2P business cases is overly optimistic assumptions about automation rates, compliance uplift or behavioural change.

A credible business case is conservative, transparent and grounded in the organisation’s maturity, culture and operating environment. It clearly articulates what needs to change operationally for benefits to be realised.

Step 2: Defining requirements before going to market

Once the business case is endorsed, organisations should invest time in clearly defining their requirements before engaging vendors.

Understanding the operating model

P2P systems must align to how procurement and finance actually operate. Key questions include:

• What level of centralisation or decentralisation is required?
• How will approvals work across different spend types?
• What categories require catalogues versus free-text purchasing?
• How will services procurement be managed?
• What role will procurement play versus finance?

Without clarity on the operating model, system selection becomes guesswork.

Distinguishing “must haves” from “nice to haves”

Not every feature matters equally. Clear prioritisation helps avoid over-engineering and keeps selection focused on what will genuinely drive value.

This discipline also prevents vendors from steering conversations towards features that sound impressive but are rarely used.

Considering integration and data architecture

P2P systems do not operate in isolation. Integration with finance, ERP, contract management and supplier master data is critical.

Requirements should explicitly consider:

• Data ownership and governance
• Master data management
• Reporting and analytics needs
• Future scalability

Ignoring these considerations early can create long-term constraints.

Step 3: Procure to Pay system selection

With requirements defined, organisations can move into a structured selection process.

Creating a level playing field

A disciplined approach ensures that all shortlisted vendors are assessed against the same criteria, scenarios and assumptions. This avoids decisions being driven by presentation quality rather than substance.

Looking beyond demonstrations

Vendor demonstrations often show idealised scenarios. Selection teams should test how systems handle real-world complexity, exceptions and edge cases relevant to their organisation.

Understanding total cost of ownership

Licence costs are only one component of cost. Implementation effort, configuration, support, internal resourcing and ongoing change all contribute to the true investment required.

Assessing vendor fit, not just product fit

Long-term success depends on more than functionality. Vendor stability, local support capability, implementation ecosystem and product roadmap all matter – particularly for Australian and New Zealand organisations operating in smaller markets.

Step 4: Implementation – where value is won or lost

Implementation is where many P2P programs struggle. Success depends less on technical execution and more on how well the organisation manages change.

Process first, system second

Implementation should reinforce standardised, future-state processes rather than replicating legacy ways of working. This often requires difficult conversations about policy, authority and accountability.

Governance and decision-making

Clear governance is essential to manage scope, resolve trade-offs and avoid uncontrolled customisation. Decisions delayed during implementation inevitably surface later as cost or usability issues.

Change management and user adoption

Procure to Pay systems affect a broad user base, many of whom do not see procurement or finance as their core role. Effective change management focuses on:

• Clear communication of “what’s in it for me”
• Simple, intuitive user journeys
• Role-based training
• Early engagement of influential users

Adoption is not automatic – it must be designed and managed.

Measuring success post-go-live

Organisations should define success metrics early and track them after go-live. These might include:

• Adoption and compliance rates
• Invoice cycle times
• Exception handling volumes
• User satisfaction
• Realisation of business case benefits

Without measurement, it is impossible to know whether the system is delivering value.

Procure to Pay as an enabler, not an end in itself

A P2P system is not the destination. It is an enabler for stronger procurement, better financial control and more informed decision-making.

Organisations that see P2P as a foundational capability – rather than a one-off system implementation – are better positioned to leverage it for:

• Strategic sourcing and category management
• Contract compliance and leakage reduction
• Supplier performance management
• ESG and regulatory reporting

This requires ongoing ownership, continuous improvement and alignment with broader business strategy.

How Trace Consultants can help

Trace Consultants supports Australian and New Zealand organisations across the full Procure to Pay journey – from initial business case through to selection and implementation support.

Our approach is grounded in a few key principles.

Independent and solution-agnostic advice

Trace is not aligned to any P2P software vendor or implementation partner. This ensures that recommendations are based solely on what is right for your organisation, not on selling licences or services.

Business-led, not system-led

We focus on clarifying the operating model, processes and governance first – ensuring that technology supports the business rather than dictating it.

Practical experience across procurement and finance

Our team brings hands-on experience across procurement, finance and supply chain, allowing us to bridge the gap between strategy and execution.

Structured selection and implementation support

From requirements definition and vendor evaluation through to implementation governance and benefits tracking, Trace provides end-to-end support to reduce risk and maximise value.

When should organisations revisit their Procure to Pay capability?

Common triggers include:

• Poor visibility over indirect or services spend
• Increasing invoice volumes and processing costs
• Audit or compliance issues
• Supplier dissatisfaction
• Growth, restructuring or system upgrades
• A desire to mature procurement capability

If these challenges sound familiar, it may be time to step back and reassess whether your current P2P capability is fit for purpose.

Final thoughts

Procure to Pay systems can deliver significant value – but only when approached as a business transformation, not a technology purchase.

The organisations that succeed are those that invest the time to build a clear business case, define what they actually need, select the right solution for their context, and manage implementation with discipline and care.

For Australian and New Zealand organisations navigating cost pressure, compliance requirements and increasing complexity, getting Procure to Pay right is not just about efficiency – it is about control, confidence and capability for the future.

‍