Why additional systems in procurement rarely simplify things — and instead often just redistribute existing complexity — and how the single creditor model opens a different path
When indirect procurement hits its limits in the ERP system, the next step often seems obvious. An additional tool should fill the gap. E-procurement platforms, catalogue systems or specialised solutions promise exactly what is missing in practice — simpler processes and less effort.
Yet in reality, something else frequently happens. The complexity does not disappear; it simply distributes itself across more systems.
Instead of a clear process logic, a grown landscape of different solutions emerges over time. The ERP remains in place, supplemented by procurement tools, approval platforms and external systems for individual categories.
This development rarely happens strategically — it evolves incrementally. A problem is solved without rethinking the overall picture.
For users, this means one thing above all: more switching between systems. Different logic depending on the tool. And the recurring question of which process actually takes place where.
Particularly in indirect procurement, where many small and spontaneous needs arise, this creates additional friction in day-to-day operations.
With each additional system, the coordination and integration effort grows. Data must be kept synchronised, processes must be aligned with one another and responsibilities must be clearly defined.
What was intended as relief quickly develops into additional organisational overhead running in the background.
The core challenge in indirect procurement does not lie in a lack of software, but in the way procurement is structured. Many individual needs are handled, controlled and processed individually.
As long as this fundamental logic persists, every new tool will simply open another window onto the same complexity.
The more systems in use, the harder it becomes for departments to know the right path. Different tools mean different processes and rules — creating not clarity, but uncertainty.
The result is often that procurement takes place directly and outside defined structures once again.
Real efficiency is not created by the number of tools deployed, but by reducing the underlying complexity. When fewer individual steps are required, the need for systems automatically decreases as well.
Rather than continually adding new tools, the focus can be placed on the structure itself. Pedlar's 1-creditor model does exactly this. Indirect procurement is consolidated and handled through a central process, rather than distributed across many systems and suppliers.
This reduces interfaces, simplifies workflows and creates clarity for all parties involved.
A growing tool stack in procurement is often a sign that the underlying problem has not been solved — only relocated. More systems rarely lead to more simplicity.
What matters is not the next piece of software, but the question of how much complexity in the process is truly necessary.
