Why one central creditor lowers process costs, keeps master data lean and makes indirect procurement easier to scale, especially with small and irregular requirements.
In indirect procurement, the greatest savings potential is not always in the purchase price. With small, irregular requirements in particular, internal process costs can quickly outweigh the actual value of the goods. A specific spare part is needed at short notice, maintenance is missing a particular tool, or a department needs a product that none of the existing suppliers can provide. The provider is often found quickly, but that is where the demanding part of the transaction begins. The new supplier has to be checked, created in the system and approved, master data has to be recorded, the order has to pass through the intended process, and invoice verification and payment follow later. All of this for a supplier from whom the company may never order again.
This is exactly where the single creditor model comes in. It consolidates orders from different providers through one central creditor and thereby creates a single interface between the buying company and a large number of suppliers. The actual provider of the goods can change from order to order, while the structure in the company's ERP and creditor processes stays the same. For one-time needs and small-scale indirect purchases in particular, this avoids a considerable share of the administrative effort.
In a single creditor model, purchases from different suppliers are handled through one central creditor. That creditor takes over the operational handling with the respective providers, while the buying company works with a single creditor relationship. This makes it possible to procure products from previously unknown suppliers, or suppliers needed only once, without triggering a complete new creditor process inside the company for each provider.
The distinction from classic supplier consolidation is decisive here. The goal is not to buy as many categories as possible from one single provider on a permanent basis, or to replace strategic supplier relationships. Instead, what is consolidated is the administrative handling of requirements for which a dedicated supplier relationship would hardly make economic sense.
This concerns an area that is easily underestimated in procurement. Many of these orders are small when viewed individually. Taken together, however, they cause considerable effort. Companies with complex technical requirements, multiple sites or decentrally arising demand in particular quickly end up dealing with hundreds of different providers, each of them needed for only a few orders, or even for just one.
With strategic purchasing volumes, it pays to negotiate intensively on prices, conditions and suppliers. For a one-time need worth a few hundred euros, the calculation looks different. Here, saving five or ten percent on the product price can achieve considerably less than handling the transaction more efficiently internally.
Because an order is more than a click on a buy button. Before a previously unknown supplier can be used, various internal processes have to be completed, depending on the organization. Data is requested and recorded, responsibilities are checked, approvals are obtained, compliance requirements are met and the creditor is created in the ERP. After the order come goods receipt, invoice verification, cost allocation and payment. On top of that come queries and coordination between the requester, procurement, accounting and possibly further departments.
In practice, process costs of up to 500 euros per order can be avoided in transactions of this kind. That makes it clear why looking at the order value alone falls short. If a required product costs 300 euros, for example, the internal cost of procuring it can, in the worst case, be similar to, or even higher than, the value of the goods themselves.
The effect that standardizing such transactions can have is shown by the example of Witzenmann. Around 300 one-time needs arise there each year, with an average order value of about 260 euros. Before the change, process costs were up to 140 euros per transaction. Through consolidated handling, these costs were reduced by around 85 percent. Over the year, this adds up to considerable savings potential, without the price of the purchased products themselves having to be reduced.
This is precisely where a key difference from classic purchasing optimization lies. The single creditor model does not start primarily with the product price, but with the costs that arise to get a comparatively small requirement through the organization in a compliant way.
Creating a creditor is not only relevant at the moment of the order. Every new supplier leaves behind a record that becomes part of the system landscape for the long term. Company and address data, payment information, tax details, contact persons and further information have to be recorded correctly and updated where necessary.
For regularly used suppliers, this effort makes sense. It becomes problematic with one-time suppliers. Here the company invests in creating, checking and maintaining a record even though the business relationship may end after a single order.
Over the years, extensive supplier bases can build up in which numerous creditors are barely used or not used at all. This not only makes it harder to keep an overview, it also creates additional effort in data cleansing, duplicate checks, blocking and internal controls. The larger and more heterogeneous the supplier base becomes, the harder it also becomes to ensure consistently high data quality.
The single creditor model changes this logic. The variety of providers actually used no longer has to be mirrored one to one in the buying company's creditor master data. For the consolidated one-time needs, one central creditor relationship remains. This reduces the number of new master data records and relieves not only procurement, but equally accounting, finance, IT and other areas involved in creating and managing suppliers.
This effect becomes more relevant the higher the number of one-time needs. Even 500 orders from 300 different providers do not necessarily have to result in 300 new creditors in the company's own ERP.
A new supplier is also a new business partner. Companies therefore have to make sure that short-notice and small purchases also meet their internal compliance requirements. Depending on the industry, company size and internal rules, this can include identity and company checks, sanctions screening or further approval steps.
It is precisely here that a conflict arises with one-time needs. The requirement is often urgent and the order value low, but that does not make the requirements for proper procurement disappear. On the contrary: if the regular process is perceived as too slow, the risk grows that alternative routes will be sought.
A single creditor model reduces the complexity inside the organization by creating one central, checked structure. Instead of setting up a new creditor process in the company's own system for each individual provider, the transaction is handled through a creditor relationship defined once.
At the same time, this improves traceability. For audits or internal controls, it is considerably easier to document one standardized process than to reconstruct after the fact a multitude of individual solutions that came about in different ways. In larger organizations in particular, this transparency can be an important advantage.
A single creditor model therefore does not mean less control. Ideally the opposite happens: control is standardized and can be integrated more consistently into a repeatable process.
Maverick buying is often viewed primarily as a compliance or discipline problem. Employees buy outside existing contracts, bypass procurement or use unintended ordering routes. Behind this, however, there is not always an intention to circumvent the rules. Often the regular process is simply disproportionately cumbersome for small and urgent requirements.
When a technician needs a spare part that is only available from a specialized provider, availability is what counts for them first. If a multi-stage supplier onboarding process has to be completed before the order, there is a practical incentive to look for a faster route. That may be an order via a corporate credit card, a subsequent expense reimbursement or another solution outside the intended purchasing process.
This creates a paradoxical effect: the more cumbersome a company's attempts to control individual small purchases, the greater the incentive to bypass exactly those structures can become.
A single creditor model can address this problem at its root. The compliant procurement route becomes faster, because the same administrative chain does not have to be triggered for every new provider. The requester still gets access to the product they need, while procurement and finance keep the transaction within a controlled structure.
Process speed itself thus becomes an instrument against maverick buying. A purchasing process that works for the user has to be bypassed far less often.
With only a few one-time needs a year, an inefficient process can often still be absorbed by manual work. The problem becomes visible as soon as the volume rises. Ten new suppliers become 100, and 100 become several hundred. Every additional creditor potentially generates further checking, onboarding and administration processes.
The single creditor model decouples the number of orders from the number of creditors that have to be managed within the company. Whether ten, 100 or 1,000 one-time needs are handled through the structure, the underlying interface stays the same.
This is particularly relevant for growing companies. New sites, additional departments or increasing specialization often mean that the variety of indirect requirements grows as well. Without a different process logic, the administrative effort grows with it. With a central creditor, by contrast, a far larger long tail of suppliers can be covered without expanding the company's own creditor base to the same extent.
This also allows for a clearer division of labor within procurement. Strategic buyers do not have to spread their time across hundreds of suppliers with minimal purchasing volume and can instead focus more on relevant categories, negotiations, security of supply and strategic supplier relationships.
Precisely because the model can offer considerable advantages for one-time needs, a clear delimitation matters. A single creditor model should not be introduced with the ambition of replacing as many of a company's supplier relationships as possible.
For strategic categories, high recurring purchasing volumes or series requirements, working directly with suppliers remains the right approach. Here it is not only about the administrative handling of an order, but about price negotiations, framework agreements, quality management, security of supply, supplier development and long-term conditions. In these areas, an additional intermediate layer would not automatically create value.
It looks different for the long tail of procurement. There, a large number of suppliers is set against comparatively small individual purchasing volumes. It is exactly in this area that the effort for supplier management and transaction handling can be disproportionately high.
The decisive question is therefore not whether a company should handle all suppliers through a single creditor. The more useful question is from what purchasing volume and order frequency onwards a direct supplier relationship is economically justified. For strategic and regularly used suppliers, the answer can be a clear yes. For a provider from whom a product worth 180 euros is bought once, the calculation often turns out differently.
Indirect procurement has a structural problem: small orders look economically insignificant when viewed individually. As a result, the process costs behind them often stay invisible. Only when all one-time needs of a year are looked at together does it become clear how much working time and administrative effort are tied up in this area.
A single creditor model therefore shifts the focus from the individual purchase price to the total cost of a procurement transaction. It is not only the question "What does the product cost?" that matters, but also "What does it cost us to procure this product in a compliant way?"
With small and irregular requirements in particular, the second figure can matter more than the first.
A central creditor reduces the need to build new structures inside the company for every provider. Master data stays leaner, compliance processes are standardized, one-time needs can be handled faster, and procurement does not have to spread its resources across a steadily growing number of very small suppliers.
This does not make the single creditor model a substitute for strategic procurement. Rather, it creates a clear separation between supplier relationships that deserve strategic attention and transactions where efficient, secure and scalable handling is what counts.
For companies, it is therefore worth taking a close look at their own long tail. How many suppliers are used only once or twice a year? What is the average order value with these creditors? How many internal process steps does creating a new one trigger? And how much working time is tied up in transactions whose economic value is actually small?
Anyone who makes these costs transparent quickly sees that optimizing indirect procurement does not necessarily have to start with another price negotiation. Sometimes the bigger lever is not having to create a new creditor for an order from a new provider in the first place.
In a single creditor model, purchases from different providers are handled through one central creditor. As a result, the buying company does not need a separate creditor relationship in its internal systems for every provider it actually uses.
The model is especially useful for small-scale, irregular and hard-to-plan indirect requirements, as well as for orders from providers that are likely to be needed only once or very rarely.
The economic effect comes mainly from avoided internal process effort. Fewer creditors have to be created and maintained, procurement processes can be standardized, and various administrative steps do not have to be repeated inside the company for every new provider.
No. For series requirements, strategic categories and regularly used suppliers, direct relationships and framework agreements usually remain the right approach. The single creditor model is above all intended for the administratively demanding long tail of procurement.
Pedlar consolidates one-time needs from different providers through one central creditor and takes over the operational handling. This allows companies to buy from previously unknown suppliers as well, without setting up a new creditor process in their own system for each individual provider.
Would you like to discuss what potential lies in the long tail of your indirect procurement? Schedule a call →
