C-parts management reimagined: efficient procurement made easy

C-parts in focus – small components, big impact‍

In the world of procurement, strategic categories and large volumes often take center stage. As a result, smaller, seemingly inconspicuous items — the so-called C-parts — quickly slide out of view. Yet this category, in many companies, creates a disproportionately high administrative burden.

C-parts have a low unit value, but they consume a large share of operational procurement resources. Reasons include high order frequency, many different suppliers, and a frequent lack of standardization in procurement processes. This article outlines how companies can make their C-parts management more efficient, reduce process costs, and relieve their procurement organization. ‍‍

What are C-parts?

C-parts typically include indirect materials, consumables, or spare parts. They are characterized by:

– a low purchase value compared with total spend,

– a high number of different items and suppliers,

– often irregular demand.

Although they account for only a small portion of total expenditure, they generate a disproportionately high administrative workload. Every order, every supplier set-up, and every invoice incurs process costs that often exceed the item value many times over.

The challenges in C-parts management

• High process costs (practice): In the Witzenmann case, each one-off purchase generated average process costs of €140, while the average item value was just €260.
• High process costs (studies indicate): Studies report process costs per C-part order of up to €150 — regardless of item value.
• Numerous suppliers: Managing many smaller suppliers ties up resources in procurement, accounting, and logistics.
• Lack of transparency: Ad-hoc orders and non-standardized processes hinder controlling and compliance.
• Insufficient automation: Excel sheets, emails, and manual workflows are error-prone and time-consuming.
• These challenges mean procurement spends less time on strategic work while operational tasks absorb a disproportionate share of resources.

Which route fits which C-part?

C-parts are not a uniform group. The plant uses some of them every day in almost the same quantity, and needs others exactly once and perhaps never again. C-parts management only becomes efficient when every part runs through the route that fits it.

Kanban or VMI pays off for C-parts that are used regularly in similar quantities, such as screws, seals or gloves. A fixed C-parts supplier refills the bins directly at the point of use. With vendor managed inventory (VMI), the supplier also manages the stock.

A catalog or framework agreement works for plannable needs that sit with a supplier who is already set up. Users choose from a fixed range. Prices and terms are agreed in advance.

Both routes assume a known supplier who is already set up. Spare parts, special parts and one-off requirements fit neither route, because the right supplier is different every time. A single part justifies neither a Kanban loop nor its own catalog entry, and supplier onboarding often costs more than the part itself.

For the rest that fits none of these routes, a single creditor is enough. It is set up once in the ERP, and every one of these requirements then runs through it, no matter which vendor has the goods or how rarely they are needed. This creditor complements catalogs and framework agreements instead of replacing them. Pedlar handles the processing as a service provider: Pedlar's agents and team take care of ordering from the supplier, payment, shipment tracking and returns.

For choosing a C-parts management provider, this means: first check which share of your C-parts recurs and which share is one-off. That determines whether you need a Kanban service provider, a catalog, a creditor for one-off requirements or a combination.

Understanding and optimizing process costs

Introducing a centralized model can significantly reduce this effort. The Witzenmann example shows that a 1-creditor model (single creditor model) can cut administrative workload substantially. The savings: over €35,000 per year for around 300 one-off purchases.

Costs related to C-parts arise less from the items themselves and more from the processes around ordering, delivery, and settlement. These include: supplier research and set-up, RFQs and price comparisons, ordering, goods-receipt checks and invoice verification, payment processing, and archiving. A key lever is therefore not squeezing item prices, but reducing and automating these process steps.

Automated procurement solutions as the key to efficiency

Innovative procurement models target exactly this. With a central service provider that manages the entire C-parts landscape, companies can:

• significantly reduce the number of creditors/suppliers,
• route all orders through a single creditor,
• standardize and automate processes,
• minimize workload in procurement and accounting,
• increase transparency in indirect spend.
• Such a 1-creditor model makes it possible to manage even small one-off purchases efficiently and compliantly — without burdening internal resources. Witzenmann implemented this model successfully with Pedlar. Result (case): up to 85% lower process costs, full relief from manual one-off workflows in procurement, and a measurable 3.3× ROI within one year.

Recommendations for companies

• Analyze your current C-parts procurement structure and process costs,
• Identify the biggest pain points in the operational workflow,
• Define a target state for automated purchasing,
• Select a provider that offers a holistic 1-creditor model,
• Run a pilot and then roll it out across the organization.

Conclusion: Rethinking C-parts management

C-parts may have a low unit value, but their impact on procurement efficiency is substantial. With an automated, centralized approach, companies can drastically reduce process costs and sustainably relieve their procurement organization — turning an apparent side issue into a strategic lever for greater efficiency and transparency.

Would you like to discuss how C-parts and one-off requirements can be handled through a single creditor? Schedule a call →