Savings claims reach you in two situations. From outside, when a vendor or a consultancy quantifies what a tool delivers. And from inside, when the central office reports to members what a joint tender achieved.
In both cases the same three questions are enough to place the claim.
First. Which price was the calculation made against, and did that price ever stand to be paid?
Second. How many projects underpin the figure, and how many of them come from a comparable sector and size class?
Third. Was the figure confirmed outside procurement, in particular by controlling?
Nothing more is needed. In sequence, the three questions test the reference basis, the robustness of the data set and the independence of the confirmation.
In August 2026 we collected nine sources stating a percentage saving for sourcing software or for procurement optimization. Two procurement consultancies, four software vendors, two trade media and, to keep the overview complete, our own figure on our homepage.
For none of these nine claims can any of the three questions be answered from the publication itself.
That is not an accusation against individual firms but a finding about the form in which this industry talks about savings. It is entirely possible that the stated values are regularly achieved in real projects and calculated internally against the price last paid. It simply is not written down anywhere.
The practical application is unspectacular. You ask the three questions in the conversation and listen to what comes back.
A sound answer to the first question names a basis, not a number. “Against the valid framework agreement price at the same volume and the same specification” is an answer. “Against the starting position” is not.
A sound answer to the second question names a quantity. Anyone saying “from numerous projects” has not answered the question. And the size class matters especially for buying groups, because experience from corporate procurement does not transfer to a member company with five million euros in revenue.
The third question is not about distrust towards procurement but about separating the measurer from the measured. A saving that controlling finds again in the income statement is a different statement from one that appears in the procurement report.
The less comfortable part. The same three questions apply to what the central office reports to its members.
Question one decides whether your success report reaches the accounts of the member companies. Question two decides whether a good individual case was extrapolated into a rate. Question three decides whether the number survives review by the auditor or the auditing association.
Anyone who applies these three questions to their own report and can answer them has a different position in front of the advisory board. Not because the number is bigger. Because it holds.
And there is a side effect. A central office that reports its own numbers this way can credibly apply the same test to a vendor.
What if a vendor cannot answer the questions? That is not a knock-out criterion. It means the stated percentage drops out of the business case and the decision has to rest on other criteria, such as whether your procedures can be mapped and whether your members are willing to participate.
Does this apply to cusoso as well? Yes, which is why our own figure appears as the ninth entry in the same overview. The study is the derivation that was missing from the homepage until then.
How laborious is the third question in practice? It costs one conversation with accounting per category, no more. It only becomes laborious when the underlying data has to be reconstructed first.
Section 2.7 of the study sets out the three questions with their rationale, and appendix A.3 contains the nine examined sources verbatim, each with a note on what is said about reference basis and sample.
→ To the white paper
In both cases the same three questions are enough to place the claim.
The three questions
First. Which price was the calculation made against, and did that price ever stand to be paid?
Second. How many projects underpin the figure, and how many of them come from a comparable sector and size class?
Third. Was the figure confirmed outside procurement, in particular by controlling?
Nothing more is needed. In sequence, the three questions test the reference basis, the robustness of the data set and the independence of the confirmation.
What applying them to published claims produces
In August 2026 we collected nine sources stating a percentage saving for sourcing software or for procurement optimization. Two procurement consultancies, four software vendors, two trade media and, to keep the overview complete, our own figure on our homepage.
For none of these nine claims can any of the three questions be answered from the publication itself.
That is not an accusation against individual firms but a finding about the form in which this industry talks about savings. It is entirely possible that the stated values are regularly achieved in real projects and calculated internally against the price last paid. It simply is not written down anywhere.
How a central office uses the questions in vendor selection
The practical application is unspectacular. You ask the three questions in the conversation and listen to what comes back.
A sound answer to the first question names a basis, not a number. “Against the valid framework agreement price at the same volume and the same specification” is an answer. “Against the starting position” is not.
A sound answer to the second question names a quantity. Anyone saying “from numerous projects” has not answered the question. And the size class matters especially for buying groups, because experience from corporate procurement does not transfer to a member company with five million euros in revenue.
The third question is not about distrust towards procurement but about separating the measurer from the measured. A saving that controlling finds again in the income statement is a different statement from one that appears in the procurement report.
How to apply the questions to your own report
The less comfortable part. The same three questions apply to what the central office reports to its members.
Question one decides whether your success report reaches the accounts of the member companies. Question two decides whether a good individual case was extrapolated into a rate. Question three decides whether the number survives review by the auditor or the auditing association.
Anyone who applies these three questions to their own report and can answer them has a different position in front of the advisory board. Not because the number is bigger. Because it holds.
And there is a side effect. A central office that reports its own numbers this way can credibly apply the same test to a vendor.
Frequently asked questions
What if a vendor cannot answer the questions? That is not a knock-out criterion. It means the stated percentage drops out of the business case and the decision has to rest on other criteria, such as whether your procedures can be mapped and whether your members are willing to participate.
Does this apply to cusoso as well? Yes, which is why our own figure appears as the ninth entry in the same overview. The study is the derivation that was missing from the homepage until then.
How laborious is the third question in practice? It costs one conversation with accounting per category, no more. It only becomes laborious when the underlying data has to be reconstructed first.
The next step
Section 2.7 of the study sets out the three questions with their rationale, and appendix A.3 contains the nine examined sources verbatim, each with a note on what is said about reference basis and sample.
→ To the white paper