Despite rising investments in procurement tools, savings stagnate in many companies. It sounds paradoxical. But it's well documented — Inverto, BCG, and Deloitte describe it consistently in their 2025/2026 procurement reports.
The problem isn't the tools. It's not the goals. It's the space between them.
A practical example: A mid-market company with €120 million in procurement volume sets a target for the year: 2% savings = €2.4 million. The goal is concrete. The goal is ambitious. But it's not executable.
Why? Because there's a gap between goal and action.
The goal says: "Save 2%." The action says: "Run RFQs." But how many? In which categories? With what volume? By when? That's not specified.
The result: Procurement responds unclearly. RFQs are launched, but haphazardly. Some yield savings, others don't. At year's end: 0.8% savings achieved, not 2%.
That's the lever gap.
The lever gap is the space between goal and measurable result, where energy dissipates.
Concretely, it works like this:
Stage 1: The goal is set. "Procurement should achieve 2% savings." That's understandable, measurable, honest.
Stage 2: Measures are defined. "We'll run RFQs, optimize payment terms, consolidate suppliers." That's not wrong either.
Stage 3: The gap appears. Between "RFQs" and "2% savings" anything goes. It needs concrete levers — how many RFQs, in which categories, with what expected savings potential.
Without this specificity, much is initiated, little is completed.
Stage 4: No documentation. At year's end: "We ran X RFQs." But what volume did each have? What savings potential was planned? What was realized? Often this documentation is missing.
The result: No clear view of what works and what doesn't.
The lever gap is the absence of this specificity and documentation.
Three reasons why this gap exists:
Reason 1: Processes are fragmented. Procurement targets are in business planning. RFQs run in an RFQ process. Awards are in another system. Savings documentation is in Excel. No end-to-end flow.
If each station works in isolation, no station can see the full chain.
Reason 2: Accountabilities are unclear. "Procurement should achieve 2% savings" — who exactly in procurement? The manager? Each buyer individually? Jointly? If that's unclear, unfocused work happens.
Reason 3: The link between goal and result is analytically demanding. To document "this RFQ yielded €50,000 in savings," you must: know the old price, know the new price, understand volume, account for quality/delivery differences, factor in overhead costs. That's complex. If the system doesn't support it, it won't get done.
Together, the three mean: The lever gap isn't malice. It's structural.
The model is actually simple. It just takes discipline.
Step 1: Break goals into concrete levers
Instead of: "We want 2% savings."
Better: "We want 2% savings, achieved as follows:
- Category A (Raw materials, €40M volume): 1% savings via supplier consolidation = €400,000
- Category B (Components, €35M volume): 1.5% via RFQ = €525,000
- Category C (Services, €20M volume): 3% via process optimization = €600,000
- Category D (Misc, €25M volume): 1% via payment term optimization = €250,000"
This way:
- Savings are now concrete per category
- Levers are clear: consolidation, RFQ, process, payment terms
- First sanity check: is this realistic? (If Category B normally shows 1%, is 1.5% ambitious?)
- Each category has an owner
Step 2: Translate levers into concrete actions
For Category A (consolidation, €400,000 target):
- Analysis: How many suppliers do we have? Who supplies what?
- Plan: Which suppliers can we consolidate? Where do we have duplication?
- Action: Start RFQ or negotiation with remaining suppliers
- Documentation: Old price, new price, volume, delta, realized savings
For Category B (RFQ, €525,000 target):
- Analysis: How many line items in this category?
- Plan: Which items in an RFQ? (Rule: at least 30% of volume)
- Action: Plan 3 RFQs, each 30-40% of category volume
- Documentation: For each RFQ, old price, new price, volume
The specificity here is: not "run RFQs," but "3 RFQs, at €3-4 million volume each."
Step 3: Establish documentation during execution
This is critical. Retroactive documentation doesn't work ("Was that an RFQ or negotiation?"). Documentation must run in parallel.
A simple template:
| Category | Lever | Action | Old Volume | Old Price | New Volume | New Price | Savings % | Savings € | Status |
|----------|-------|--------|------------|-----------|------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| A | Consolidation | Supplier Merger X+Y | 1M€ | €100/unit | 1M€ | €96/unit | 4% | €40k | Awarded |
| B | RFQ | Component 1 RFQ | 2M€ | €50/unit | 2M€ | €47/unit | 6% | €120k | Awarded |
This works best directly in a sourcing tool like cusoso Target: enter procurement goals, plan levers per category, document savings proof after each RFQ — all connected, instead of spread across files and email inboxes.
Step 4: Regular reviews
Not just at year-end. Monthly or quarterly.
Question: How much of planned savings is realized so far? Where are we on plan, where not? What do we need to adjust?
If in Q1 only 15% of planned savings is realized but 25% of the year is gone, the signal is: "We're off-track, need to move faster or use other levers."
Without this review, at year's end we're surprised we only hit 0.8% instead of 2%.
A supplier with €200 million in procurement volume. Annual target: 3% savings = €6 million.
Planning:
- Steel category (€40M): 2% via supplier consolidation = €800,000 (1 RFQ, 3 weeks)
- Plastics category (€30M): 2.5% via new suppliers = €750,000 (2 RFQs, 8 weeks)
- Electronics category (€50M): 4% via RFQ + design changes = €2,000,000 (3 RFQs, 12 weeks)
- Logistics category (€35M): 2% via transport optimization = €700,000 (negotiation, 4 weeks)
- Misc category (€45M): 2% via payment terms + discounts = €900,000 (continuous)
Total: €5,150,000 (86% of target, since not everything runs simultaneously).
Execution:
- Months 1-3: Execute steel RFQ, €600,000 realized
- Months 2-4: Plastics RFQ 1, €400,000 realized
- Months 3-8: Electronics RFQs in parallel, €1,200,000 realized (in tranches)
- Months 4-5: Logistics negotiation, €500,000 realized
- Months 1-12: Payment term optimization continuously, €600,000 realized
Ongoing documentation: for each RFQ/negotiation the template is completed.
Monthly review: How much savings is documented through month X? Are we on-track?
Results after 12 months:
Documented savings: €3,300,000 (55% of target, because some RFQs yielded less than planned, some weren't executed).
Learning: The goal was too ambitious or levers too optimistically estimated. For next year: more conservative planning.
That's the point — with systematic documentation you see where gaps are.
Mistake 1: Too many levers at once
"We'll do RFQs, consolidation, payment term optimization, design changes." That's too much in parallel. The team gets overwhelmed, nothing gets completed.
Better: 3-4 levers. Sequential or parallel only if capacity allows.
Mistake 2: No baseline
Knowing the "old price" is critical. If this information isn't available, you can't document savings.
Requirement: ERP system with good history, or at least a table with current price and volume per supplier.
Mistake 3: Unclear owner
"Procurement should achieve 2% savings" — but which buyer? If unclear, unfocused work happens.
Better: One owner per category.
Mistake 4: Documentation too late
"We'll write it up at year's end." That doesn't work. Three months later the details are gone.
Documentation takes 30 minutes per RFQ, right after award.
Mistake 5: Ignoring quality differences
"New price €50, old price €52, so 4% savings." But what about new delivery time (now +3 days)? Or new quality (higher defect rate)?
Real savings account for this. If the new delivery time gets expensive, that's a negative offset.
How do we document savings if we don't have a system?
With a structured template — filled in after each RFQ or negotiation. Even better: directly in cusoso Target, which connects procurement planning, RFQs, and savings documentation in one system. That closes exactly the gap described above.
Who owns savings documentation?
One dedicated buyer who maintains the tracking file. Or: each buyer documents their own savings. The procurement manager aggregates monthly.
What if a savings target isn't achievable?
That shows by Q1 at the latest. Then: adjust the goal or use other levers. That's OK — transparency is the goal, not perfection.
Do we need expensive sourcing software for documentation?
No. cusoso Target is built exactly for this use case: plan procurement goals, run RFQs, document savings — all in one system, without months of implementation. For mid-market procurement teams, it's the most direct way to structurally close the lever gap.
How do we prevent savings from being "double-counted"?
By documenting each action clearly: category, supplier, volume. Duplicates will show. That requires audit and control — usually the CFO.
Closing the lever gap isn't complex. But it takes discipline.
This week:
1. Clarify procurement target for this year (if not already specified)
2. Walk through with the team: which levers do we need to hit the target?
3. Per lever: concrete volume, concrete action, clear owner
Next week:
4. Set up a documentation system — cusoso Target connects procurement planning, RFQs, and savings documentation in one system
5. Start first actions and maintain documentation in parallel
Monthly:
6. Review: how much savings is documented? Are we on-track?
It's not glamorous. It's craft. But it's the foundation that makes the difference between "we're doing a lot" and "we're hitting 2%."
cusoso Target supports exactly this process: Structurally plan procurement goals, run RFQs directly, and document savings without gaps — in a system that's ready in days, not months. If you'd like to know whether cusoso Target fits your procurement setup, our quick check shows you in 3 minutes.
→ To the Quick Check
The problem isn't the tools. It's not the goals. It's the space between them.
A practical example: A mid-market company with €120 million in procurement volume sets a target for the year: 2% savings = €2.4 million. The goal is concrete. The goal is ambitious. But it's not executable.
Why? Because there's a gap between goal and action.
The goal says: "Save 2%." The action says: "Run RFQs." But how many? In which categories? With what volume? By when? That's not specified.
The result: Procurement responds unclearly. RFQs are launched, but haphazardly. Some yield savings, others don't. At year's end: 0.8% savings achieved, not 2%.
That's the lever gap.
What the lever gap is
The lever gap is the space between goal and measurable result, where energy dissipates.
Concretely, it works like this:
Stage 1: The goal is set. "Procurement should achieve 2% savings." That's understandable, measurable, honest.
Stage 2: Measures are defined. "We'll run RFQs, optimize payment terms, consolidate suppliers." That's not wrong either.
Stage 3: The gap appears. Between "RFQs" and "2% savings" anything goes. It needs concrete levers — how many RFQs, in which categories, with what expected savings potential.
Without this specificity, much is initiated, little is completed.
Stage 4: No documentation. At year's end: "We ran X RFQs." But what volume did each have? What savings potential was planned? What was realized? Often this documentation is missing.
The result: No clear view of what works and what doesn't.
The lever gap is the absence of this specificity and documentation.
Why the gap is so stubborn
Three reasons why this gap exists:
Reason 1: Processes are fragmented. Procurement targets are in business planning. RFQs run in an RFQ process. Awards are in another system. Savings documentation is in Excel. No end-to-end flow.
If each station works in isolation, no station can see the full chain.
Reason 2: Accountabilities are unclear. "Procurement should achieve 2% savings" — who exactly in procurement? The manager? Each buyer individually? Jointly? If that's unclear, unfocused work happens.
Reason 3: The link between goal and result is analytically demanding. To document "this RFQ yielded €50,000 in savings," you must: know the old price, know the new price, understand volume, account for quality/delivery differences, factor in overhead costs. That's complex. If the system doesn't support it, it won't get done.
Together, the three mean: The lever gap isn't malice. It's structural.
How to systematically close the lever gap
The model is actually simple. It just takes discipline.
Step 1: Break goals into concrete levers
Instead of: "We want 2% savings."
Better: "We want 2% savings, achieved as follows:
- Category A (Raw materials, €40M volume): 1% savings via supplier consolidation = €400,000
- Category B (Components, €35M volume): 1.5% via RFQ = €525,000
- Category C (Services, €20M volume): 3% via process optimization = €600,000
- Category D (Misc, €25M volume): 1% via payment term optimization = €250,000"
This way:
- Savings are now concrete per category
- Levers are clear: consolidation, RFQ, process, payment terms
- First sanity check: is this realistic? (If Category B normally shows 1%, is 1.5% ambitious?)
- Each category has an owner
Step 2: Translate levers into concrete actions
For Category A (consolidation, €400,000 target):
- Analysis: How many suppliers do we have? Who supplies what?
- Plan: Which suppliers can we consolidate? Where do we have duplication?
- Action: Start RFQ or negotiation with remaining suppliers
- Documentation: Old price, new price, volume, delta, realized savings
For Category B (RFQ, €525,000 target):
- Analysis: How many line items in this category?
- Plan: Which items in an RFQ? (Rule: at least 30% of volume)
- Action: Plan 3 RFQs, each 30-40% of category volume
- Documentation: For each RFQ, old price, new price, volume
The specificity here is: not "run RFQs," but "3 RFQs, at €3-4 million volume each."
Step 3: Establish documentation during execution
This is critical. Retroactive documentation doesn't work ("Was that an RFQ or negotiation?"). Documentation must run in parallel.
A simple template:
| Category | Lever | Action | Old Volume | Old Price | New Volume | New Price | Savings % | Savings € | Status |
|----------|-------|--------|------------|-----------|------------|-----------|-----------|-----------|--------|
| A | Consolidation | Supplier Merger X+Y | 1M€ | €100/unit | 1M€ | €96/unit | 4% | €40k | Awarded |
| B | RFQ | Component 1 RFQ | 2M€ | €50/unit | 2M€ | €47/unit | 6% | €120k | Awarded |
This works best directly in a sourcing tool like cusoso Target: enter procurement goals, plan levers per category, document savings proof after each RFQ — all connected, instead of spread across files and email inboxes.
Step 4: Regular reviews
Not just at year-end. Monthly or quarterly.
Question: How much of planned savings is realized so far? Where are we on plan, where not? What do we need to adjust?
If in Q1 only 15% of planned savings is realized but 25% of the year is gone, the signal is: "We're off-track, need to move faster or use other levers."
Without this review, at year's end we're surprised we only hit 0.8% instead of 2%.
Practical example: Automotive supplier
A supplier with €200 million in procurement volume. Annual target: 3% savings = €6 million.
Planning:
- Steel category (€40M): 2% via supplier consolidation = €800,000 (1 RFQ, 3 weeks)
- Plastics category (€30M): 2.5% via new suppliers = €750,000 (2 RFQs, 8 weeks)
- Electronics category (€50M): 4% via RFQ + design changes = €2,000,000 (3 RFQs, 12 weeks)
- Logistics category (€35M): 2% via transport optimization = €700,000 (negotiation, 4 weeks)
- Misc category (€45M): 2% via payment terms + discounts = €900,000 (continuous)
Total: €5,150,000 (86% of target, since not everything runs simultaneously).
Execution:
- Months 1-3: Execute steel RFQ, €600,000 realized
- Months 2-4: Plastics RFQ 1, €400,000 realized
- Months 3-8: Electronics RFQs in parallel, €1,200,000 realized (in tranches)
- Months 4-5: Logistics negotiation, €500,000 realized
- Months 1-12: Payment term optimization continuously, €600,000 realized
Ongoing documentation: for each RFQ/negotiation the template is completed.
Monthly review: How much savings is documented through month X? Are we on-track?
Results after 12 months:
Documented savings: €3,300,000 (55% of target, because some RFQs yielded less than planned, some weren't executed).
Learning: The goal was too ambitious or levers too optimistically estimated. For next year: more conservative planning.
That's the point — with systematic documentation you see where gaps are.
Common mistakes when closing the gap
Mistake 1: Too many levers at once
"We'll do RFQs, consolidation, payment term optimization, design changes." That's too much in parallel. The team gets overwhelmed, nothing gets completed.
Better: 3-4 levers. Sequential or parallel only if capacity allows.
Mistake 2: No baseline
Knowing the "old price" is critical. If this information isn't available, you can't document savings.
Requirement: ERP system with good history, or at least a table with current price and volume per supplier.
Mistake 3: Unclear owner
"Procurement should achieve 2% savings" — but which buyer? If unclear, unfocused work happens.
Better: One owner per category.
Mistake 4: Documentation too late
"We'll write it up at year's end." That doesn't work. Three months later the details are gone.
Documentation takes 30 minutes per RFQ, right after award.
Mistake 5: Ignoring quality differences
"New price €50, old price €52, so 4% savings." But what about new delivery time (now +3 days)? Or new quality (higher defect rate)?
Real savings account for this. If the new delivery time gets expensive, that's a negative offset.
Common questions
How do we document savings if we don't have a system?
With a structured template — filled in after each RFQ or negotiation. Even better: directly in cusoso Target, which connects procurement planning, RFQs, and savings documentation in one system. That closes exactly the gap described above.
Who owns savings documentation?
One dedicated buyer who maintains the tracking file. Or: each buyer documents their own savings. The procurement manager aggregates monthly.
What if a savings target isn't achievable?
That shows by Q1 at the latest. Then: adjust the goal or use other levers. That's OK — transparency is the goal, not perfection.
Do we need expensive sourcing software for documentation?
No. cusoso Target is built exactly for this use case: plan procurement goals, run RFQs, document savings — all in one system, without months of implementation. For mid-market procurement teams, it's the most direct way to structurally close the lever gap.
How do we prevent savings from being "double-counted"?
By documenting each action clearly: category, supplier, volume. Duplicates will show. That requires audit and control — usually the CFO.
Next steps
Closing the lever gap isn't complex. But it takes discipline.
This week:
1. Clarify procurement target for this year (if not already specified)
2. Walk through with the team: which levers do we need to hit the target?
3. Per lever: concrete volume, concrete action, clear owner
Next week:
4. Set up a documentation system — cusoso Target connects procurement planning, RFQs, and savings documentation in one system
5. Start first actions and maintain documentation in parallel
Monthly:
6. Review: how much savings is documented? Are we on-track?
It's not glamorous. It's craft. But it's the foundation that makes the difference between "we're doing a lot" and "we're hitting 2%."
cusoso Target supports exactly this process: Structurally plan procurement goals, run RFQs directly, and document savings without gaps — in a system that's ready in days, not months. If you'd like to know whether cusoso Target fits your procurement setup, our quick check shows you in 3 minutes.
→ To the Quick Check