Value leaks across procurement.
Silently, and in every direction.
Konekti exposes where procurement execution deviates from intent: off-contract spend, price deviations, late deliveries, and process exceptions. All ranked by financial impact before the pattern repeats.
For procurement and operations leaders who know the leakage is there but can't see exactly where.
What's happening
Procurement leakage is not random. It follows patterns you can trace.
Every euro lost through off-contract buying, poor pricing, or process inefficiencies directly impacts margin. Procurement teams know this. The problem is that the processes creating the leakage are fragmented: more suppliers, more exceptions, more deviation from the intended flow.
The relevant data already exists in your ERP and accounting systems. But Excel reports and BI tools show slices. They don't show how processes are interconnected, how one deviation leads to another, or where the financial damage actually accumulates.
Leakage isn't detected until it's already happened. And because the mechanism stays invisible, the same patterns repeat.
The leakage map
Value leaks at every stage of purchase-to-pay.
Konekti has mapped where process intelligence creates measurable financial value across the full procurement cycle.
Free-text requisitions drive off-contract spend, rework, and delays. By the time they're detected, the purchase has already happened. Konekti detects non-catalog purchase requests and measures their impact on cycle time, approval flows, and price deviations.
A real example
28% of MRO requisitions are free-text. That results in 15% higher prices than catalog alternatives and 2.3x longer PR-to-PO cycle time. On a €10M MRO spend base, that exposes €2.8M of spend to a potential €420K price premium.
Reduced maverick spend · Faster PR-to-PO cycle · Fewer invoice exceptions
Purchases deviate from contract terms, causing margin erosion. These deviations are typically detected too late. Often not at all. Konekti compares contracts vs PO and invoice prices, exposing off-contract spend and price deviations by supplier and category.
A real example
A material purchased 9% above contract price across 5 POs due to an unregistered surcharge. A 9% contract-price deviation means €90K of leakage for every €1M of affected spend.
Reduced margin leakage · Higher contract compliance · Captured negotiated savings
Supplier deliveries miss confirmed dates, and the operational impact is hard to quantify. Actions are taken only after material shortage has disrupted operations. Konekti tracks promised vs actual delivery and surfaces delay patterns by supplier, lane, and SKU.
A real example
Delays on critical components from one supplier triggered €40K in expedited freight and emergency sourcing within 4 weeks. That is a €520K annualized run-rate if the pattern continues.
Improved OTIF · Reduced disruption risk · Better planning accuracy
How Konekti helps
Konekti reconstructs what happened, identifies root causes, and triggers action.
Konekti analyses actual process events from ERP systems and accounting applications. It exposes where execution deviates from intent, where value leaks across the process, and where procurement needs to intervene before issues materialize financially.
Not after the invoice. Before the pattern repeats.
- See the full purchase-to-pay process as it actually ran. Not as it was designed.
- Identify deviations ranked by financial impact, not by volume or visibility.
- Trigger the right action at the right point in the process.
The first engagement
Connected data to ranked leakage in two weeks.
We connect to your existing data, build the operational model, and show you quantified results before you commit to anything broader.
- A connected model of your purchase-to-pay process as it actually ran
- A ranked list of procurement leakage by financial exposure
- Root-cause evidence trails your team can inspect
- A working dashboard or monitoring view
- A prioritized action list
- A business case for the next intervention
Proven in the field
€1.4M in ranked procurement leakage identified from existing ERP data.
A publicly listed European cloud technology company had procurement and accounts payable processes spanning hundreds of supplier relationships across multiple geographies. They had a persistent and familiar problem: payment discrepancies kept appearing in the accounts payable lists, and no one could reliably explain where they came from.
The data existed. Purchase orders, invoice records, approval flows. All of it was in the ERP. But the process as it was actually being executed wasn't visible anywhere. The Internal Audit team couldn't reconstruct how a requisition had moved through approval, where it had deviated from the intended flow, or which process step had introduced the discrepancy. Every investigation started from scratch. The same patterns kept reappearing.
Konekti mapped the company's full purchase-to-pay process as it had actually run. Not the designed flow, but the executed reality. The analysis revealed that payment discrepancies weren't random. They clustered around specific process patterns: requisitions that had bypassed standard approval routes, invoices matched to purchase orders where the original terms had shifted, and a subset of supplier relationships where confirmation and delivery behaviour consistently diverged from what was recorded in the system.
Within weeks of the initial data connection, €1.4M in procurement leakage opportunities had been identified and ranked by financial impact. The Internal Audit team moved from reactive investigation to a structural view of where the process was generating exceptions, and why.
€1.4M identified
ranked procurement leakage from existing ERP data
Full P2P mapped
without new infrastructure or data migration
Root causes traced
recurring discrepancy patterns traced to structural process root causes
Proactive oversight
Internal Audit shifted from reactive case work to proactive process oversight
Bring one procurement or spend leakage question.
We connect the data, build the model, quantify the opportunity, and show which decisions need to change before the same issue returns.