Indirect Spend: Quick Wins in 90 Days — What Actually Moves the Needle

Indirect spend rarely gets the attention it deserves. It sits scattered across marketing, IT, facilities, professional services and travel; it belongs to everyone and therefore to no one. It typically accounts for the vast majority of an organization's suppliers and transactions — while receiving only a fraction of procurement's strategic attention. Which is exactly why it is almost always the fastest place to create visible value.

After 25+ years in international procurement, including transformation and interim mandates, I have seen the same pattern again and again: companies don't need a two-year program to improve indirect spend. They need a focused first 90 days. Here is what that looks like in practice.

Days 1–30: Transparency before tools

The first instinct in many organizations is to buy a spend analytics platform. Resist it — at least for now. In the first month, the goal is not perfection; it is a workable picture of reality, built from what already exists: accounts payable data, PO history, contract repositories (however incomplete), and conversations with the people who actually buy.

Three questions matter most. Where does the money go, by category and by vendor? Who decides — and who signs? And which contracts renew automatically in the next twelve months?

That last question is worth underlining. Auto-renewals are the silent budget killers of indirect spend. In almost every mandate I have taken on, I have found contracts that renewed unnoticed — software licenses nobody used anymore, service agreements sized for an organization that no longer existed. A simple contract calendar, built in the first 30 days, routinely pays for the entire effort.

The output of month one is deliberately unglamorous: a spend cube that is 80% accurate, a top-20 vendor list, and a renewal calendar. That is enough to act on.

Days 31–60: Pick three battles, not thirty

With transparency in hand, the temptation is to launch initiatives everywhere. Don't. Credibility in indirect procurement is built by finishing things, not by starting them.

In the second month, I typically select two or three levers with the best ratio of impact to organizational friction:

Renegotiate where the leverage already exists. Somewhere in your top-20 vendor list there is a supplier whose contract is outdated, whose volumes have grown, or whose market has become more competitive since the last negotiation. You don't need a full tender to capture this — a well-prepared renegotiation, backed by the data from month one, typically delivers mid-single-digit savings on the affected spend within weeks. Occasionally more, when a contract has been left untouched for years — but treat those cases as the exception, not the plan.

Use e-auctions — for the right categories. Where specifications are standardized and enough qualified suppliers compete — think logistics lanes, facility services, IT hardware, print, temporary labor — an e-auction compresses what would otherwise be months of sequential negotiation into a single event. Done well, it is one of the fastest and most transparent levers in indirect procurement. Done indiscriminately, it damages supplier relationships in categories where quality, continuity or expertise matter more than price. The skill lies in the category selection and preparation, not in the tool itself.

Address demand, not just price. The most sustainable savings in indirect categories come from consuming differently, not from squeezing suppliers. Do all those licenses have active users? Does every meeting need to be a physical event? Are consulting engagements scoped, or open-ended? Demand questions are uncomfortable because they touch internal habits — which is precisely why an experienced external voice often finds it easier to ask them.

Tame the tail — pragmatically. Tail spend (the thousands of small vendors below the radar) is rarely worth a sophisticated program in the first 90 days. But two simple moves help immediately: channel new small purchases through preferred vendors or catalogues, and stop creating new vendor records without a procurement touchpoint. You are not solving tail spend in month two; you are stopping it from growing.

Days 61–90: Make it stick

Quick wins that evaporate after the consultant leaves are not wins. The third month is about anchoring:

Report the results in the language of the CFO — realized savings, cost avoidance, and risk removed (those cancelled auto-renewals count). Separate hard savings from soft ones honestly; nothing damages procurement's credibility faster than inflated numbers.

Install a minimal governance rhythm: a monthly 30-minute review of the renewal calendar and the top initiatives. Not a committee — a habit.

And define what phase two looks like — category strategies, a proper S2P backbone, perhaps AI-supported spend classification — so that the momentum has somewhere to go. The 90-day sprint earns the mandate for the structural work; it does not replace it.

What indirect spend quick wins can — and cannot — deliver

Indirect spend quick wins are real, but they are not the whole story. Anyone who promises to "transform" indirect procurement in 90 days is selling something. What 90 days can genuinely deliver is transparency, two or three closed initiatives with measurable results, a stop to silent value leakage — and, perhaps most importantly, organizational trust that procurement adds value beyond purchase orders.

That trust is the foundation everything else is built on.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Marianne Haack is an interim procurement leader with 25+ years in international pharma and life sciences (Novartis, MorphoSys, MSD), specializing in indirect spend, procurement transformation and carve-out/PMI mandates.