How the 1-creditor model removes operational complexity from indirect purchasing
One-off needs are still regarded as a necessary evil in many companies. Too small for strategic attention, too versatile and different for real structure. That is exactly what makes them dangerous. Because while purchasing departments invest their energy in price negotiations, digitization and supply chain resilience, the historical background has continued to build up and is now one of the most pressing issues in operational purchasing. Unstructured requirements and with them process costs, risks and operational overload.
Purchasing 2026 is under massive pressure. Tasks are becoming more complex, teams are not getting bigger. Anyone who continues to treat one-off requirements as a side issue will lose efficiency exactly where it is needed most urgently.
What has been ignored for a long time is increasingly coming into focus. Indirect demands account for a significant proportion of ordering processes in many companies. Not in volume, but in number. Each individual one-time requirement involves research, approvals, supplier preparation, audit and coordination.
In particular, the large number of small processes in indirect procurement tie up considerable resources and lead to inefficiencies. Indirect procurement comprises numerous categories that do not go directly into end products but are essential for ongoing operations and are therefore handled in a decentralized and fragmented manner. This is characteristic of indirect procurement compared to direct procurement, which is usually more predictable and structured.
Independent research proves the high costs involved in indirect purchasing. A recent study In a survey of 181 European companies, the Leipzig University of Applied Sciences found that companies spend an average of around 5,600 hours per year to procure indirect materials, including demand management, sourcing, supplier support and order processing, while at the same time low digital maturity and fragmented processes.
While direct purchasing generally follows clear processes and fixed governance structures, indirect processes, high transaction costs and inconsistent processes often occur, especially when purchasing processes are carried out decentrally and levels of digital integration are low.
For 2026, this area will become a decisive lever for efficiency and controllability because companies are increasingly recognizing that strategic management of indirect spending not only reduces operating costs, but also strengthens transparency, compliance security and digital control capabilities.
Companies no longer measure their purchasing solely in terms of savings. Key figures such as process costs per order, PO coverage, number of active suppliers and processing times are becoming increasingly important. It is precisely here that the weakness of many organizations is revealed.
Compared to catalogue-based orders, one-time requirements often cost many times more than the process costs. At the same time, transparency decreases as more suppliers and special cases arise. Anyone who takes these KPIs seriously quickly realizes that the biggest loss of efficiency is not in the price, but in the process.
E-procurement systems, ERP automation and data analyses are important components of modern purchasing organizations. But they reach limits where processes are not standardized. One-off requirements can only be catalogued to a limited extent. They create exceptions that represent digital systems but do not simplify them.
The result is a paradox. Despite high investments in tools, operational costs remain high. Manual interventions, special approvals and master data maintenance are not disappearing, they are simply shifting. Efficiency only occurs when the structure behind the systems is also right.
Fragmented supplier landscapes not only increase administrative costs, but also compliance and ESG risks. Lack of documentation, non-transparent expenditure and unclear responsibilities become a problem at the latest during audits or regulatory requirements.
At the same time, operational tasks related to one-time requirements block capacities that are urgently needed for strategic issues. Purchasing should do more with less time.
It is precisely at this point that the understanding of roles in purchasing is changing. Not every operational task has to be solved internally. It is crucial to maintain control while reducing complexity.
Pedlar's 1-creditor model starts right here. Companies add Pedlar once as a supplier in the system. All one-time requirements run centrally through this one creditor. No recurring supplier system, no fragmented invoices, no process breaks.
Pedlar takes care of operational management, ensures clean documentation and a clear, process-compliant process. Purchasing maintains transparency, budget control and management but regains valuable time.
The purchasing of the future is not measured by how well it processes special cases, but by how consistently it directs resources to value-adding topics. One-off requirements are not a detail, but a structural issue.
Companies that want to be successful in 2026 must start right here. Not with more tools, not with more rules, but with clear models that reduce operational load and enable strategic impact.
One-off requirements are no longer a side issue. They are an indicator of how sustainable a purchasing organization really is.
