e-procurement suites and catalog systems solve planned standard spend well. For genuine one-off requirements, supplier onboarding still remains — that's where the tail spend gap opens up.
Why does a gap in tail spend remain, even when a company already runs an e-procurement suite or catalog system? The reason lies in the catalog itself. It reliably covers planned standard spend, but a supplier outside the curated list still needs its own creditor in the ERP — exactly the step the suite was meant to avoid.
For office supplies, that works well. For a rare spare part, it doesn't. For a custom piece made for a trade show or a one-time service, the familiar path remains: find a provider, set up a creditor, review the invoice individually, while the suite keeps running unchanged alongside it.
Catalog systems and e-procurement suites consolidate many suppliers into a single interface. This makes ordering itself more convenient: approval workflows can be mapped digitally, prices are easy to compare at a glance, and recurring standard items like office supplies or safety equipment run through the process largely automated.
That's exactly where the model's strength lies. Planned spend can be curated in advance. A supplier who delivers regularly pays back the effort of onboarding across many orders, because the same creditor gets used again and again and never needs to be set up anew.
One simple question decides it: Will the same item come up again for you in the foreseeable future? For office supplies, standard tools, or safety equipment, the answer is usually yes, and the effort of curation pays off across many orders.
For a spare part for a special-purpose machine, a piece made for the next trade-show stand, or a one-time service, the answer is almost always no. Exactly these requirements stay outside the suite, no matter how extensive the catalog grows.
For genuine one-off requirements, that doesn't hold. Maintenance might need a custom-made gasket for a 15-year-old special-purpose machine, for example, a one-off, at roughly €340 (illustrative). That's rarely worth it. Before the same gasket is needed again, years often pass, if ever.
If the department orders outside the suite anyway, the full supplier onboarding still applies: capturing master data, running a credit check, setting up a creditor in the ERP. The catalog simply doesn't know this supplier.
The difference shows up between indirect procurement in general and actual tail spend. A curated catalog covers the planned C-parts for which a fixed supplier relationship pays off. Genuine micro-orders still fall through the cracks.
If you already run SAP Ariba or Coupa, that changes little about the structural problem. Both suites organize the approved catalog excellently. That covers, according to SAP Ariba itself, things like approval workflows, price comparison, and catalog content management. They share the same blind spot for anything that wasn't curated in advance.
A single creditor complements them rather than replacing them.
No new system gets introduced. The existing ordering process stays untouched and simply grows by one additional creditor.
What's missing is a second path alongside the suite: a creditor that absorbs every new one-off requirement, regardless of which supplier ultimately delivers. Whether a company hires an external BPO provider or builds its own punchout integration remains open at this point. What matters is only that the second path exists.
Pedlar operates this model as a managed service. Alongside SAP Ariba or Coupa, this single creditor takes on exactly the part of spend for which a catalog listing isn't worth it.
The gap isn't the same size everywhere. Other companies barely notice it. Industrial and manufacturing companies with broad product categories and multiple sites are especially affected.
There, many departments deal with a constantly changing set of one-off suppliers, while the e-procurement suite only covers the planned portion of it. The more sites and product categories a company runs, the larger the share that bypasses the catalog, and the more a complementary creditor pays off.
No. It complements the suite for the part of spend for which a catalog listing isn't worth it. Planned standard spend stays in the catalog, and both paths run in parallel without replacing one another.
Because every additional catalog supplier brings the same creditor-maintenance effort that the suite is meant to avoid. For a single purchase, that's never worth it.
Through a punchout integration, it appears as an additional catalog alongside the existing ones. The requisition, purchase order, and invoice review remain unchanged.
No, that isn't necessary; the punchout integration simply complements the existing system, alongside the classic email-based process that remains an option.
Find out how the Single Creditor Model closes the tail spend gap alongside your e-procurement suite: Schedule a call →
