[yellow_lead]

> it'd be $30k and take 2 days less, and he said they needed it done ASAP, it'd be faster to convince capex to pay the $150k than it would be to start another round of discussions on the engineering.

ouch. This kind of situation could benefit from a cost savings program at that company.

[mikepurvis]

I'm genuinely curious at how a top-down initiative could succeed at rooting out this type of waste. Without empowering the cost savings to speak directly to the vendor, it's hard to imagine them being able to discover that paying a month or two sooner could get them non-FU pricing.

[caminante]

Running an RFP and benchmarking versus competitors would address this.

The problem is empowerment to question the officer who signed the deal and has the vendor relationship.

[mathattack]

Sometimes the cost and energy of the RFP means it’s only done for $500K or higher. An understaffed sourcing team has to focus on the huge deals.

[caminante]

> Sometimes the cost and energy of the RFP means it’s only done for $500K or higher.

Fair point, but that's for a different discussion.

The question was how to "root" it out, not business priorities.

If you're unable to flag and audit an easily identifiable 400% cost increase year over year and +$100k in savings, then let's be honest about the value creation of your AP/Procurement teams.