Indirect procurement often appears unspectacular in many companies. Individual needs arise, are requested, ordered and eventually delivered. Precisely because these transactions often seem relatively small, the underlying process is rarely examined more closely. Yet this is where one of the largest hidden inefficiencies in procurement lies.

A typical one-off requirement passes through multiple stages before it actually arrives in the company. Between the first purchase requisition and the final invoice lie numerous coordination steps, approvals and organisational tasks. Each one can cost time. Together, they create a process that can take several weeks.

How a typical procurement process actually looks

It usually begins with a simple purchase requisition from a department. A team requires, for example, a specialist service, a spare part, a marketing deliverable or a one-off product. The request is passed to procurement, often by email or through an internal ticket system.

Procurement first reviews the need. Is there already a suitable supplier? Does an existing contract apply? If not, the search for appropriate providers begins. Quotes are obtained, compared and agreed internally. Depending on the organisational structure, several approval steps follow.

Once a decision has been reached, the supplier is created in the system. Master data must be verified, tax information is requested and internal policies must be satisfied. Only then can the actual order be placed.

After the order, the next phase of the process begins. Order confirmations are reviewed, delivery dates are coordinated and queries are resolved. Once the service has been rendered or the goods delivered, invoicing follows, along with its review within the company.

What appears on paper as a clearly structured workflow frequently develops in practice into a complex interplay of emails, queries and system steps.

Where the most time is lost in the process

The actual time losses rarely arise from single large delays. Far more often, many small waiting times accumulate throughout the entire process.

A frequent time drain is the supplier search. Particularly for one-off needs, existing relationships are often absent. Procurement must identify providers, make contact and obtain quotes. This phase alone can take several days.

Internal coordination also extends the process. Quotes are forwarded, budgets must be checked and decisions are discussed in multiple rounds. Each query generates additional waiting time.

A further factor is media breaks between different systems and communication channels. Needs are reported by email, quotes exist as documents, orders are created in the ERP system and coordination runs in parallel across various channels. These transitions cost time and simultaneously increase the risk of misunderstandings.

The onboarding of new suppliers is frequently particularly demanding. Even for one-off needs, master data must still be verified, documents collected and approvals obtained. The administrative effort is often disproportionate to the actual procurement value.

Delays also arise at the end of the process. Invoices must be allocated, reviewed and approved. When information is missing or orders are not clearly referenced, additional clarification loops arise.

Why one-off needs are particularly inefficient

While strategic procurement typically has clearly structured processes, many indirect needs fall into a grey area. They are too individual for standardised catalogues, yet simultaneously too small to justify extensive procurement processes economically.

This creates a mismatch between effort and order value. A one-off need can generate several days of coordination and administrative work, even though the actual procurement value is relatively low.

For procurement teams, this means that a significant proportion of operational capacity flows into transactions that offer little strategic value. At the same time, supplier master records and administrative complexity continue to grow.

How a Single Supplier Model can shorten processes

One approach to reducing this process complexity is the consolidation of such one-off needs through a 1-vendor model. Rather than creating new suppliers and running complete procurement processes for each individual purchase, companies can handle certain needs through a single central vendor.

This is precisely where Pedlar comes in. Companies onboard Pedlar once as a supplier in their own system and can then process many indirect one-off needs through this single vendor.

The operational procurement in the background is handled by Pedlar. For the company, the process therefore remains significantly leaner, since only one vendor is managed administratively. Process times can be reduced by up to 85%.

Particularly for infrequent or unstructured purchases, this approach reduces several of the biggest time drains in the process and makes procurement more efficient. Supplier searches, the onboarding of new creditors and a large part of the operational coordination are outsourced, while procurement retains transparency and control over the need.

Conclusion

Indirect procurement rarely loses time at a single point. Rather, the time loss arises from many small delays throughout the entire process — from the purchase requisition to the invoice.

Supplier searches, internal coordination, media breaks and the onboarding of new creditors mean that even small purchases generate a surprisingly high level of effort.

Companies that view these processes holistically and simplify them in a targeted manner can achieve significant efficiency gains. Approaches such as 1-vendor models help to reduce administrative complexity and relieve procurement of operational process work.