A Leading Paper Manufacturer Transforms Procurement Across Plants and Projects
About the company
A paper manufacturer buying coal, plant stores and project equipment across its mills. A lean team of around ten people covers direct materials, services and capital purchases between them, which leaves no slack for repeated clarification.
- Industry
- Manufacturing
- Scale
- Thousands of items and three spend types, covered by about ten people
- Scope
- Intake, sourcing, supplier performance, project procurement and savings reporting
At a glance
Before Proconomy
- Three kinds of buying, three processes
- Approvals differed by spend type
- Specifications came back incomplete
- Supplier evidence was scattered
- Nothing could be audited end to end
After Proconomy
- Requests arrive complete
- Sourcing moves without coordination
- Price stops deciding alone
- Capital spend is traceable
- Savings become a number you can show
Key products
- Intake & orchestration
- Sourcing & RFx
- eAuctions
- Supplier management
- Spend intelligence
The challenge
Plant requests, sourcing, supplier records and invoices each lived somewhere different. Raw materials, stores and project equipment needed genuinely different handling, and with a team this size every clarification cycle came out of the same ten diaries.
The team needed one view across plants and projects, and a savings number somebody could audit.
Three kinds of buying, three processes
Raw materials, stores and project equipment each needed their own sourcing treatment.
Approvals differed by spend type
Direct, indirect, services and project buying each followed different approvals.
Specifications came back incomplete
Plants were repeatedly asked to clarify technical requirements after submission.
Supplier evidence was scattered
Delivery, quality and compliance data sat in different places from the decision that needed it.
Nothing could be audited end to end
Sourcing, contracts, invoices and savings were hard to reconcile into one picture.
What the manufacturer actually asked for
Five things, all of them about getting the request right the first time.
- Specifications captured at the point of request, not chased afterwards.
- One approval path covering direct, indirect, services and projects.
- Supplier delivery, quality and compliance visible at the award.
- Capital projects tied to milestones and retention, not run separately.
- Sourcing, contracts, invoices and savings auditable end to end.
What we built
Structured L1 to L3 intake, nine sourcing formats, Supplier 360 at the award, project controls on WBS and retention, and connected execution on one audit trail.
Structured L1–L3 intake
Templates capture specifications and approvals upfront, by item level, before a request moves.
Nine RFQ and auction formats
Competitive sourcing covers the range of buying without forcing every category through one shape.
Supplier 360 at the award
Delivery, quality and compliance scores sit beside price when the award is decided.
Project controls
WBS, BOQ, milestones and retention link capital buying to what was actually delivered.
Connected execution and analytics
Contracts, invoices, analytics and the ERP share one audit trail.
The result
What changed once it was running.
Requests arrive complete
Plants submit full requirements, so the clarification cycles that cost a lean team most simply stop starting.
Sourcing moves without coordination
Standard RFQs, auctions and approvals cut the manual coordination that scaled with volume.
Price stops deciding alone
Buyers weigh supplier performance and compliance against price rather than after it.
Capital spend is traceable
Requests, approvals, contracts and invoices stay connected from sanction to retention release.
Savings become a number you can show
Spend and savings views support decisions across categories instead of being rebuilt for each review.
See this running on your own numbers — fifteen minutes, no slides.
Request a workflow demonstrationThis will sound familiar. If any of these are you.
- A small team covers direct, indirect, services and capital between them.
- Half the sourcing calendar goes on clarifying what the plant actually meant.
- Capital projects are bought on a different process from everything else.
- Someone rebuilds the savings number by hand before every review.
Where this connects
The questions we get asked.
Nobody learns nine. The format is chosen by the category template, so a buyer sees the one that fits what they are buying. The nine exist so that coal and a capital crane are not forced through the same event.
Three levels of specification detail, from a simple stores item to an engineered one. The level sets which fields are mandatory, which is what stops an incomplete request being submitted at all.
It is traceable, which is the part that was missing. Each saving ties back to the event, the contract and the invoice behind it. Whether your auditor accepts the method is a conversation to have with them, and we will support it either way.
It belongs on the same rules. WBS, BOQ, milestones and retention are project mechanics the platform understands, so capital buying keeps its own controls without needing its own process.
The same problem, at your scale
Every group that runs more than one operating company arrives at the same place: policy that exists on paper, applied differently in every plant, evidenced by whoever happens to remember. Bring us the workflow where that costs you the most, and we will run it against your rules.
Someone from client success replies, not a sales sequence. If we are not a fit we will say so on the first call.
Not ready to talk to anyone?
Fair enough. Both of these work without giving us your email.