Sure, Your Data is Complex. But the Real Challenge is…
It sure has been a busy month for the PRGX team.
Over the past few weeks, we’ve been on the ground with finance and procurement leaders at:
- SSOW Australia
- FMI Financial Executives & Internal Audit (Nashville)
- SSOW Portugal
- Procurement Leaders World Procurement Congress (London)
This month, in S2P Edge, we’ll go through some of the key takeaways. Instead of TL;DR more like TMT;DA (Too Much Travel; Didn’t Attend)
The headline: Most leaders don’t believe they’re leaving money on the table. They know they are.
What they don’t know is:
- where it’s leaking
- how much is recoverable
- or how to fix it without creating an even more complex Rube Goldberg device for their teams to manage and navigate
That’s where most recovery programs stall—not because the data isn’t there, but because translating insight into action is harder than it looks.
It’s especially true when teams lean on automation—and the algorithm doesn’t recognize the exception to the rule.
You still need expertise that can validate and act on what the system surfaces.
This month, we’re highlighting patterns we’re hearing consistently across those conversations.
1. The Visibility Gap: “We Know There’s Leakage… But Not Where”
A conversation we had in Sydney could have easily happened in Nashville or Lisbon:
“We think there’s value being missed… we just can’t quantify it.”
What’s driving that:
- Deal terms spread across email, contracts, and systems
- Inconsistent execution at the transaction level
- Limited visibility beyond obvious issues like duplicates
The result:
- Teams chase known errors
- More complex value remains hidden
What this means:
Most organizations aren’t underperforming because they lack data—they’re underperforming because they lack a clear path from insight → validation → recovery.
👉 For a deeper look:
Where corporate spend leaks across S2P
2. Working Capital Is a Strategy. Execution Is the Problem.
At multiple stops this month, working capital came up repeatedly.
But the challenge isn’t alignment—it’s operational reality.
What we’re seeing:
- Payment terms are negotiated but not consistently enforced
- Indirect spend is harder to analyze and optimize
- Teams lack a clear benchmark for what “good” looks like
Improving DPO/DSO sounds simple… until you try to operationalize it across suppliers, systems, and internal teams.
What this means:
The opportunity is real. But without execution infrastructure, most initiatives stall before they produce measurable impact.
Many teams are leaning heavily on systems and automation. That’s not enough. This isn’t just a tooling problem—it’s an execution problem.
👉 Example:
7x ROI from a single supplier negotiation
3. The Plateau Effect: Why Recovery Programs Lose Momentum
One of the more consistent signals we heard—especially in Sydney and Lisbon:
Organizations aren’t failing—they’re plateauing.
Early years deliver value. Then things level off.
Why:
- The same error types are identified and resolved
- Incremental value becomes harder to surface
- Programs shift from discovery → maintenance
At the same time, your people change, your processes evolve, and supplier behavior doesn’t stand still.
In one recent engagement, duplicate payments accounted for a relatively small share of recoverable value. The majority sat in areas like supplier credits and contract misalignment—issues that hadn’t been surfaced by the existing program.
What this means:
The biggest risk isn’t having no program. It’s assuming your current one is still capturing everything it should.
👉 Learn more:
AP recovery audit services guide
4. Platform Fatigue Is Real
Another consistent theme across events:
“We don’t want to implement another system.”
Most teams are already managing:
- ERP environments
- AP automation tools
- Analytics platforms
Adding another layer means:
- training
- ownership
- ongoing maintenance
For already stretched teams, that’s a non-starter.
What this means:
As automation improves, there’s also growing acceptance that expertise still matters.
Teams are looking for partners who deliver outcomes without adding operational burden.
👉 How leading teams are approaching this:
AP profit recovery solutions overview
5. Beyond Duplicates: Where the Real Value Lives
Even now, a number of conversations still start here:
“Isn’t this just duplicate payment recovery?”
Short answer: no.
In most cases, the majority of recoverable value sits in:
- statement-based discrepancies
- credits and returns
- cash-on-account
- contract misalignment
Duplicates are visible.
The rest requires deeper analysis—and, more importantly, validated execution.
What this means:
If your program is anchored in duplicate detection, you’re only seeing a fraction of the opportunity.
👉 Read more:
Why root-cause analysis is critical in recovery
What We’re Hearing Most Often
“How much work will this create for my team?”
More than anything, teams are trying to avoid internal lift. If a solution requires ongoing investigation, it rarely gains traction.
“Why wouldn’t we just use a tool?”
Tools are effective at identifying exceptions. The challenge is converting those exceptions into validated, recoverable outcomes.
“Is this a one-time audit?”
The real value comes from ongoing identification, validation, and prevention—not a one-off exercise.
“If we already have a provider, why change?”
That depends on whether your current program is still uncovering new value—or repeating old findings.
A Simpler Way to Think About It
Across all of these conversations, the pattern is consistent:
- Data isn’t the constraint
- Insight isn’t the constraint
- Strategy isn’t the constraint
Execution is.
The organizations creating the most value right now are the ones that:
- move from detection to validated action
- minimize internal lift
- focus on outcomes, not just analysis
Where To Go Next
If any of this feels familiar, start with one question:
Where is your current program no longer finding new value?
If you can’t answer that clearly, it’s worth taking a closer look.
👉 Start here by speaking with a PRGX expert:
Speak with a PRGX expert