Beyond “What We Spend” — Turning Vendor & Contract Data Into Decisions

Click here to download the Document:

Executive Premise

Traditional vendor reports answer only one basic question: “How much do we spend?” That is not a decision-support question and is insufficient for decision-making.

To influence commercial outcomes, TBM and FinOps leaders need context; contracts, consumption, obligations, renewal risk, compliance, alternatives, and outcomes.

Without this context, organizations negotiate blind, renew automatically, and allow waste to perpetuate for years. True Vendor Insights can elevate vendor and contract intelligence from passive reporting to an active decision system that reduces spend, prevents waste, and improves negotiation leverage.

1) Cost Without Context Leads to Bad Decisions

A $10M vendor spend may be acceptable or wildly inefficient depending on context. Without seeing contracts, consumption, and business criticality, leaders are forced to decide on incomplete information.

Spend alone can only trigger suspicion not action. Decisions require context, not totals.

2) Contract Sprawl Is a Hidden Tax on the Enterprise

Contract sprawl exists when the same vendor is contracted separately by business units, regions, or programs, instead of through a unified commercial strategy. This is one of the most common and most expensive forms of unmanaged vendor waste because it erodes leverage, increases administrative overhead, and obscures the true total cost of the relationship.

This is why consolidation isn’t just “procurement hygiene”, it is a material cost-savings lever.

Even without changing vendors, moving from seven contracts to one typically yields:

Financial benefits

• 10–20% cost reduction via volume leverage and unified commercial terms
• Elimination of duplicative professional services or support entitlements
• Reduced spend on unused or misaligned license tiering

Operational & risk benefits

• One renewal cycle instead of seven requires less legal and executive time
• One set of terms increases compliance and reduces exposure
• Vendors prefer it, lower cost to manage means more negotiation flexibility

Strategic benefit

• Shifts the conversation from “line-item spend” to “strategic vendor management”
• Creates the basis for benchmarking across vendors or negotiating multi-year terms

Contract sprawl is not a visibility problem, it is a governance and ownership problem. Without a unified view, organizations negotiate weakly, renew reactively, and sustain waste indefinitely.

3) Usage-Aligned Reporting Changes Everything

Most organizations make renewal and licensing decisions based on entitlement and spend, not on actual consumption or value realized. That gap is exactly where overspend, shelfware, and misaligned licensing live.

A contract that funds 3,000 licenses is not inherently wasteful, it is only wasteful if those licenses are not being used in a way that justifies the cost or tier. You cannot know that from finance systems alone. True optimization requires insight into how licenses are being used, not just how many were purchased.

Common patterns of unrecognized waste

• Login ≠ Usage A user logging in twice a year still counts as “active” in many vendor reports, even if they do not extract value.
• Wrong tier for the job Thousands of users assigned to premium/enterprise licenses when they only use free-tier features.
• Business roles mismatched to license cost Executives or occasional reviewers holding full creator/integrated licenses for tools they only view.
• Legacy licenses never reclaimed Contractors, offboarded employees, or project teams whose access should have been removed months ago.
• Dual-tool bloat Teams maintain Tableau AND PowerBI OR Miro AND Lucid when one could serve as the enterprise standard.

Usage intelligence enables real decisions, such as:

• De-tiering Move users down to lower license tiers if they don’t use premium capabilities.
• De-scoping Eliminate licenses assigned to inactive users entirely.
• Tool rationalization Migrate single-purpose usage (e.g., “one report view per month”) to cheaper or free alternatives.
• Adoption enforcement Sunset licenses for tools that are “technically live” but “organically abandoned.”
• True-up preemption Detect unauthorized use or overconsumption before audit triggers financial penalties.

Example: Usage-based rationalization in practice

500 Power BI Pro licenses at $13/user/month → $78,000 annually Usage analysis shows 462 users only view one published dashboard That dashboard can be migrated to PowerBI Free or to another corporate portal Those 462 licenses can be removed or downgraded without business disruption

Resulted in a 92% cost reduction for that population with zero impact to business users.

True optimization only happens when spend, entitlement, and observed usage are linked. Spend decisions should not be based on “what was bought”, but on “what is actually consumed and needed.” When usage data is connected to contracts and business context, vendor optimization becomes defensible, measurable, and repeatable, and not a one-time savings stunt.

4) Decisions Must Be Measured After the Fact

Most vendor and contract “wins” are declared at the moment of approval, not at the moment of proven value. That creates a dangerous illusion of progress: the contract is signed, the email is sent, the project is closed, and no one ever checks whether the expected savings, compliance posture, or adoption change actually occurred.

Why post-decision validation is essential

Executives don’t fund activity, they fund verified outcomes. Without measurement:

• Negotiation success cannot be proven or repeated
• Savings are promised but never realized
• TBM credibility erodes over time
• Poor decisions get recycled because no one sees the consequences

Validation turns a decision from a story into a result.

What should be measured after a vendor decision

After a renewal, consolidation, or decommissioning event, you should be able to quantify:

 If none of those can be shown, the decision did not produce value, it merely created motion.

EXAMPLE — Proving a “good decision” was actually good

Before decision: 3 separate contracts with the same vendor across three regions, each renewing mid-year.

Decision made: Consolidate into single global agreement with harmonized terms.

Because it was measured after execution, the consolidation is defensible and repeatable, not anecdotal. A vendor decision is not successful when it is signed, it is successful when it produces measurable, verified business impact. TBM and FinOps leaders gain credibility when they not only drive decisions, but also prove those decisions worked.

Why YäRKEN + Accelerate TBM Together

YäRKEN supplies the platform intelligence which links vendor spend, contract terms, renewals, consumption patterns, license demographics, and optimization opportunities in one model, not in disconnected spreadsheets, BI extracts, or legal folders. The same

system that tracks vendor cost also tracks the impact of vendor decisions, closing the loop between insight and outcome.

Accelerate TBM drives the execution discipline establishing the governance, decision cadence, modeling rigor, and sourcing alignment required to act on insights and sustain savings. They ensure that vendor optimization is not a one-time event, but a repeatable operating rhythm aligned to budget cycles, renewals, and enterprise strategy.

Together, the partnership delivers intelligence + action not just dashboards, not just advice.

If you want to move beyond passive vendor reporting and turn contract and usage data into measurable financial outcomes:

For platform insights and vendor intelligence with full context info@yarken.com

For execution support and TBM-driven vendor optimization services info@acceleratetbm.com

Vendor spend will not fix itself, but the right intelligence and operating discipline will.