Procurement Observatory · The firm
How does AI change the procurement operating model?
Most companies begin by using AI to improve individual procurement tasks. The larger change begins when agents coordinate work across the buying process. The operating-model question is who designs and governs those connections.
- Need
- Define
- Find
- Compare
- Check
- Negotiate
- Approve
- Order
- Pay
The same procurement journey can support four very different operating models.
The reframe
We tend to look for change in the wrong place.
We ask whether agents are autonomous, whether humans remain in the loop or how many tasks have been automated. These questions can miss the more important changes occurring before the final decision.
Doing the work, shaping the decision, applying a rule and making the outcome official are different functions. They can be distributed across an agent, a human approver, a configured rule, a software platform and a system of record.
An agent may determine which suppliers are considered, what information reaches the approver, how an exception is classified and which action follows. A person may still give final approval. Formally, the approver has not changed. Operationally, the decision has been restructured.
- 1 Need
- 2 Define
- 3 Find
- 4 Compare
- 5 Check
- 6 Negotiate
- 7 Approve
- 8 Order
- 9 Pay
Three questions, asked of every stage
- 1Who performs the work?
- A person, an internal system or a provider performs the activity.
- 2Who configures how it works? The pivot
- Someone sets the objective, eligible options, rules and thresholds. This is the question that changes the operating model.
- 3Who remains accountable?
- Someone must answer for the outcome when it is wrong. Accountability does not automatically move when the work does.
The evidence
The firm usually configures approval. Providers often configure what happens before and after it.
49 observed decision positions across 10 procurement areas
- 5 configured by the firm All five are the act of approval.
- 34 configured by providers
- 7 configured by institutions
- 3 configured by counterparties
Across the ten procurement areas examined, the firm most clearly retains configuration at approval. Providers, institutions and counterparties configure many of the capabilities that determine eligibility, create options, apply rules and execute the result.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Performing work and configuring a capability are different things. A tool can do a great deal of the work in a procurement area without configuring the capability that governs it, and a party can configure a capability it never operates. This analysis counts the second: who sets how each part of the decision works.
Explore the underlying decision architecture 10 procurement areas × 8 decision capabilities, 49 coded positions
Across the 10 procurement areas examined, the record codes 49 decision positions.
- 5 configured by the firm all five are the act of approval
- 34 configured by providers
- 7 configured by institutions
- 3 configured by counterparties
The firm still configures approval. Much of what shapes and executes the decision is configured elsewhere.
A count of coded positions in ten examined procurement areas. It is not a prevalence, a share, an adoption rate or a trend, and it says nothing about areas outside the ten.
Who sets the objectives, the rules and the thresholds the capability runs on. This is the view the map opens on, because it is where the pattern sits.
Who does the work. Performing work and configuring how it works are different questions, and a cell can answer them with different actors.
Making an outcome official is one of the eight capabilities, not a property of all eight. Seven columns are therefore blank in this view by definition rather than for want of evidence, and three areas have no coded position in the one column that applies.
- Firm The buying organisation, or a system it runs.
- Provider A supplier of the software or the platform.
- Institution A regulator, a standards body or a public register.
- Counterparty The other side of the transaction.
- Shared Held between two parties, or contested between them.
- No coded position No inspected source describes this capability in this area.
- Not where an outcome is made official The question does not arise for these seven capabilities.
| Procurement area | Frame the requirement Who defined what the firm needs? | Set who is eligible Who decided which options may be considered? | Find the alternatives Who produced the options? | Evaluate and choose Who judged the options, and how far did that judgement go? | Apply the rules Who turned company policy into rules the process applies? | Make it official Who may say this proceeds? | Execute the decision Who turns an approval into an action? | Hold the record Who holds what happened, and who learns from it? |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Requisition and guided buying | Requisition and guided buying, Find the alternatives. No coded position. | Requisition and guided buying, Execute the decision. No coded position. | ||||||
| Purchase order and fulfilment | Purchase order and fulfilment, Frame the requirement. No coded position. | Purchase order and fulfilment, Set who is eligible. No coded position. | Purchase order and fulfilment, Find the alternatives. No coded position. | |||||
| Goods receipt and acceptance | Goods receipt and acceptance, Frame the requirement. No coded position. | Goods receipt and acceptance, Set who is eligible. No coded position. | Goods receipt and acceptance, Hold the record. No coded position. | |||||
| Invoice to payment | Invoice to payment, Frame the requirement. No coded position. | Invoice to payment, Set who is eligible. No coded position. | Invoice to payment, Find the alternatives. No coded position. | |||||
| Supplier onboarding | Supplier onboarding, Frame the requirement. No coded position. | Supplier onboarding, Find the alternatives. No coded position. | Supplier onboarding, Evaluate and choose. No coded position. | Supplier onboarding, Make it official. No coded position. | ||||
| Supplier risk | Supplier risk, Frame the requirement. No coded position. | Supplier risk, Find the alternatives. No coded position. | Supplier risk, Evaluate and choose. No coded position. | Supplier risk, Execute the decision. No coded position. | ||||
| Contract lifecycle | Contract lifecycle, Frame the requirement. No coded position. | Contract lifecycle, Set who is eligible. No coded position. | Contract lifecycle, Apply the rules. No coded position. | Contract lifecycle, Make it official. No coded position. | ||||
| Contingent workforce | Contingent workforce, Evaluate and choose. No coded position. | Contingent workforce, Make it official. No coded position. | Contingent workforce, Hold the record. No coded position. | |||||
| Direct materials | Direct materials, Execute the decision. No coded position. | Direct materials, Hold the record. No coded position. | ||||||
| SaaS acquisition | SaaS acquisition, Frame the requirement. No coded position. | SaaS acquisition, Set who is eligible. No coded position. | SaaS acquisition, Find the alternatives. No coded position. |
One area at a time. The eight capabilities stay in the order they hold on the map.
Area 1 of 10 Requisition and guided buying
-
Frame the requirement
-
Set who is eligible
-
Find the alternatives
No coded position -
Evaluate and choose
-
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
-
Execute the decision
No coded position -
Hold the record
Area 2 of 10 Purchase order and fulfilment
-
Frame the requirement
No coded position -
Set who is eligible
No coded position -
Find the alternatives
No coded position -
Evaluate and choose
-
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
-
Execute the decision
-
Hold the record
Area 3 of 10 Goods receipt and acceptance
-
Frame the requirement
No coded position -
Set who is eligible
No coded position -
Find the alternatives
-
Evaluate and choose
-
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
-
Execute the decision
-
Hold the record
No coded position
Area 4 of 10 Invoice to payment
-
Frame the requirement
No coded position -
Set who is eligible
No coded position -
Find the alternatives
No coded position -
Evaluate and choose
-
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
-
Execute the decision
-
Hold the record
Area 5 of 10 Supplier onboarding
-
Frame the requirement
No coded position -
Set who is eligible
-
Find the alternatives
No coded position -
Evaluate and choose
No coded position -
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
No coded position -
Execute the decision
-
Hold the record
Area 6 of 10 Supplier risk
-
Frame the requirement
No coded position -
Set who is eligible
-
Find the alternatives
No coded position -
Evaluate and choose
No coded position -
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
-
Execute the decision
No coded position -
Hold the record
Area 7 of 10 Contract lifecycle
-
Frame the requirement
No coded position -
Set who is eligible
No coded position -
Find the alternatives
-
Evaluate and choose
-
Apply the rules
No coded position -
Make it official
No coded position -
Execute the decision
-
Hold the record
Area 8 of 10 Contingent workforce
-
Frame the requirement
-
Set who is eligible
-
Find the alternatives
-
Evaluate and choose
No coded position -
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
No coded position -
Execute the decision
-
Hold the record
No coded position
Area 9 of 10 Direct materials
-
Frame the requirement
-
Set who is eligible
-
Find the alternatives
-
Evaluate and choose
-
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
-
Execute the decision
No coded position -
Hold the record
No coded position
Area 10 of 10 SaaS acquisition
-
Frame the requirement
No coded position -
Set who is eligible
No coded position -
Find the alternatives
No coded position -
Evaluate and choose
-
Apply the rules
-
Make it official
-
Execute the decision
-
Hold the record
Choose any coded position on the map to read what is happening there, how it shapes the decision, what the firm controls and why it matters.
Requisition and guided buying × Frame the requirement
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Requisition and guided buying. Frame the requirement. Who defined what the firm needs?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool composes the request itself.
How this shapes the decision
It composes the request itself. Everyone downstream reads the requirement in the words this actor chose, and a requirement only one supplier can meet has already narrowed the choice.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Purchase requests can now be pre-filled with AI-extracted details from documents”
Record
control:C-004
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Requisition and guided buying × Set who is eligible
Firm system bounds what may happen
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Requisition and guided buying. Set who is eligible. Who decided which options may be considered?
Who is doing it
Firm system. Routing a requester to one catalogue narrows what may be chosen.
How this shapes the decision
It bounds the set of options that may be considered at all. Nothing outside the boundary reaches evaluation, so this position shapes the decision without appearing in it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Requesters are intelligently guided to the correct intake form, internal catalog, external marketplace, or third-party system”
Record
control:C-004
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Requisition and guided buying × Evaluate and choose
Firm system names a preferred option
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Requisition and guided buying. Evaluate and choose. Who judged the options, and how far did that judgement go?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool assesses which requisitions are low risk and puts that assessment in front of the approver.
How this shapes the decision
It names a preferred option and hands it on. The choice remains with the party that receives the recommendation.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
A strategic capability sits with a provider
Whoever sets the weights decides which option looks best. A provider configuring this position shapes the choice without appearing in it, and accountability for the outcome stays with the firm. This is a capability to configure rather than delegate.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“infrequent buyers an easy step-by-step, structured guided buying experience ensuring compliance with every purchase.”
Record
control:C-005
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as recommends. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Requisition and guided buying × Apply the rules
Firm system bounds what may happen
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Requisition and guided buying. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool reads the spending limits and assembles the chain of people who will act.
How this shapes the decision
It turns written policy into a rule the process applies. A rule that cannot be expressed here is a policy the process no longer enforces.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“If the original requester has a self approval limit less than the requisition, expense report, or invoice, then Coupa adds their next approver to the approval chain.”
Record
control:C-001
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Requisition and guided buying × Make it official
Firm system makes the outcome official
Performs: Firm system Configures: Firm Makes official: Firm system
What is happening
Area and capability
Requisition and guided buying. Make it official. Who may say this proceeds?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A rule the buying organisation configured sets the approval state. The record's own note bars reading this as an AI capability.
How this shapes the decision
It performs the act that makes the outcome official. This is the only capability of the eight that does so.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The firm. The record codes the configuration of this position to the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The firm, directly.
Makes the outcome official
Firm system. This position is the act that makes the outcome official.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Configuration authority worth keeping
This is one of the few positions the firm still configures. The question is not whether to keep it but whether keeping it is enough, given that the requirement, the options and the rules that reach it are configured elsewhere.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“The workflow process can also be configured to skip the review tasks and automatically approve the purchase requisition.”
Record
control:C-002
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by firm; reach coded as authorizes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Requisition and guided buying × Hold the record
Provider platform holds the record of what happened
Performs: Provider platform Configures: Institution
What is happening
Area and capability
Requisition and guided buying. Hold the record. Who holds what happened, and who learns from it?
Who is doing it
Provider platform. The record is held by named platforms and a federal catalogue platform.
How this shapes the decision
It holds the authoritative account of what happened. Whoever holds that account holds what any later review, dispute or renewal is argued from.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The institution. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
An institution. The grounds are set in rule or regulation rather than by either commercial party.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
Provider platform holds the authoritative record of what happened. No inspected source describes outcomes from it feeding back into later decisions.
Why it matters
The terms are not negotiable
An institution sets the grounds here, so this is not a capability the firm can choose to own. What the firm can own is how quickly it notices a change and how cleanly it adapts, which is an operating-model question rather than a sourcing one.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“JAGGAER One and Dynamics 365 hold the requisition”
Record
control:holder
How this position was coded
Performed by provider platform; configured by institution; reach coded as records. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Purchase order and fulfilment × Evaluate and choose
Firm system makes the choice
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Purchase order and fulfilment. Evaluate and choose. Who judged the options, and how far did that judgement go?
Who is doing it
Firm system. The award is made by the system. This is the one area where the evidence reaches selection.
How this shapes the decision
It makes the choice. This is the one coded position in the record where evaluation reaches selection rather than stopping at a recommendation.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
A strategic capability sits with a provider
Whoever sets the weights decides which option looks best. A provider configuring this position shapes the choice without appearing in it, and accountability for the outcome stays with the firm. This is a capability to configure rather than delegate.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“After an autonomously awarded negotiation is approved, the subsequent ESS job run finalizes the award and generates the purchasing documents.”
Record
control:C-003
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as selects. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Purchase order and fulfilment × Apply the rules
Institution bounds what may happen
Performs: Institution Configures: Institution
What is happening
Area and capability
Purchase order and fulfilment. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Institution. An institution changed where the constraint is applied.
How this shapes the decision
It turns written policy into a rule the process applies. A rule that cannot be expressed here is a policy the process no longer enforces.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The institution. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
An institution. The grounds are set in rule or regulation rather than by either commercial party.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The terms are not negotiable
An institution sets the grounds here, so this is not a capability the firm can choose to own. What the firm can own is how quickly it notices a change and how cleanly it adapts, which is an operating-model question rather than a sourcing one.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“An order that trips NSO_066 is no longer merely flagged; it fails validation.”
Record
movement:MV-PURC-EV-03
How this position was coded
Performed by institution; configured by institution; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Purchase order and fulfilment × Make it official
Shared makes the outcome official
Performs: Shared Configures: Firm Makes official: Shared
What is happening
Area and capability
Purchase order and fulfilment. Make it official. Who may say this proceeds?
Who is doing it
Shared. Approval of the award is a setting that can be enabled rather than a step the product requires.
How this shapes the decision
It performs the act that makes the outcome official. This is the only capability of the eight that does so.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The firm. The record codes the configuration of this position to the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The firm, directly.
Makes the outcome official
Shared. This position is the act that makes the outcome official.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Configuration authority worth keeping
This is one of the few positions the firm still configures. The question is not whether to keep it but whether keeping it is enough, given that the requirement, the options and the rules that reach it are configured elsewhere.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record does not settle whether this capability is an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“When approvals are enabled, the award is submitted for approval.”
Record
control:C-003
How this position was coded
Performed by shared; configured by firm; reach coded as authorizes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Purchase order and fulfilment × Execute the decision
Firm system turns the decision into an action
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Purchase order and fulfilment. Execute the decision. Who turns an approval into an action?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool writes the change onto the order after a person reviews it.
How this shapes the decision
It turns a decision that has already been made into an action in the world. It does not form the decision and it does not authorize it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Distributed accountability
A provider configures how the decision is executed. Execution is often the easiest capability to delegate and the hardest to unwind, because the provider that performs it frequently also holds the record of what it did.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“It can apply those changes directly to purchase orders in Supply Chain Management.”
Record
control:C-001
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Purchase order and fulfilment × Hold the record
Counterparty holds the record of what happened
Performs: Counterparty Configures: Counterparty
What is happening
Area and capability
Purchase order and fulfilment. Hold the record. Who holds what happened, and who learns from it?
Who is doing it
Counterparty. The counterparty holds the record that settles the order.
How this shapes the decision
It holds the authoritative account of what happened. Whoever holds that account holds what any later review, dispute or renewal is argued from.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The counterparty. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The counterparty. The other side of the transaction sets the terms this position applies.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
Counterparty holds the authoritative record of what happened. No inspected source describes outcomes from it feeding back into later decisions.
Why it matters
The other side sets the terms
The counterparty configures this position, so the firm's leverage sits in the commercial relationship rather than in its own systems. Accountability for the outcome still rests with the firm.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“The seller's purchase order system holds the response”
Record
control:holder
How this position was coded
Performed by counterparty; configured by counterparty; reach coded as records. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Goods receipt and acceptance × Find the alternatives
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Goods receipt and acceptance. Find the alternatives. Who produced the options?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool composes the document the next step works from.
How this shapes the decision
It produces the options the next step works from. Which options exist bounds every judgement made after this point.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“A generated Advanced Shipment Notification composed from text-based input.”
Record
control:C-002
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Goods receipt and acceptance × Evaluate and choose
Firm system names a preferred option
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Goods receipt and acceptance. Evaluate and choose. Who judged the options, and how far did that judgement go?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool recommends the disposition. The record names the decision as remaining with a person.
How this shapes the decision
It names a preferred option and hands it on. The choice remains with the party that receives the recommendation.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
A strategic capability sits with a provider
Whoever sets the weights decides which option looks best. A provider configuring this position shapes the choice without appearing in it, and accountability for the outcome stays with the firm. This is a capability to configure rather than delegate.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Access to inspection details and past work orders, and recommended actions.”
Record
control:C-004
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as recommends. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Goods receipt and acceptance × Apply the rules
Firm system bounds what may happen
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Goods receipt and acceptance. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool generates the quality orders and the report that says whether a lot passes. People still inspect.
How this shapes the decision
It turns written policy into a rule the process applies. A rule that cannot be expressed here is a policy the process no longer enforces.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“workers inspect a statistically determined sample size of products to identify defects”
Record
control:C-005
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Goods receipt and acceptance × Make it official
Human team makes the outcome official
Performs: Human team Configures: Firm Makes official: Human team
What is happening
Area and capability
Goods receipt and acceptance. Make it official. Who may say this proceeds?
Who is doing it
Human team. Acceptance is the contracting officer's responsibility.
How this shapes the decision
It performs the act that makes the outcome official. This is the only capability of the eight that does so.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The firm. The record codes the configuration of this position to the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The firm, directly.
Makes the outcome official
Human team. This position is the act that makes the outcome official.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Configuration authority worth keeping
This is one of the few positions the firm still configures. The question is not whether to keep it but whether keeping it is enough, given that the requirement, the options and the rules that reach it are configured elsewhere.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The question of whether this is an agent does not arise for this position.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“The contracting officer”
Record
control:authority
How this position was coded
Performed by human team; configured by firm; reach coded as authorizes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Goods receipt and acceptance × Execute the decision
Firm system turns the decision into an action
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Goods receipt and acceptance. Execute the decision. Who turns an approval into an action?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool posts and reverses the receipt, and stops at an explicit confirmation.
How this shapes the decision
It turns a decision that has already been made into an action in the world. It does not form the decision and it does not authorize it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Distributed accountability
A provider configures how the decision is executed. Execution is often the easiest capability to delegate and the hardest to unwind, because the provider that performs it frequently also holds the record of what it did.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“A posted goods receipt against a named inbound delivery, its reversal, and a goods receipt created without reference”
Record
control:C-001
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Invoice to payment × Evaluate and choose
Firm system names a preferred option
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Invoice to payment. Evaluate and choose. Who judged the options, and how far did that judgement go?
Who is doing it
Firm system. The supplier's own sentence places the decision with the customer. A tool assesses and recommends.
How this shapes the decision
It names a preferred option and hands it on. The choice remains with the party that receives the recommendation.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
A strategic capability sits with a provider
Whoever sets the weights decides which option looks best. A provider configuring this position shapes the choice without appearing in it, and accountability for the outcome stays with the firm. This is a capability to configure rather than delegate.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“customers remain in full control of final approva”
Record
control:C-005
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as recommends. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Invoice to payment × Apply the rules
Firm system bounds what may happen
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Invoice to payment. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool applies the compliance checks the invoice has to pass.
How this shapes the decision
It turns written policy into a rule the process applies. A rule that cannot be expressed here is a policy the process no longer enforces.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“the Payables Agent automates invoice ingestion, compliance, and control across multiple sou”
Record
control:C-001
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Invoice to payment × Make it official
Human team makes the outcome official
Performs: Human team Configures: Firm Makes official: Human team
What is happening
Area and capability
Invoice to payment. Make it official. Who may say this proceeds?
Who is doing it
Human team. Named approvers hold the release.
How this shapes the decision
It performs the act that makes the outcome official. This is the only capability of the eight that does so.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The firm. The record codes the configuration of this position to the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The firm, directly.
Makes the outcome official
Human team. This position is the act that makes the outcome official.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Configuration authority worth keeping
This is one of the few positions the firm still configures. The question is not whether to keep it but whether keeping it is enough, given that the requirement, the options and the rules that reach it are configured elsewhere.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The question of whether this is an agent does not arise for this position.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“The originating institution and its approvers”
Record
control:authority
How this position was coded
Performed by human team; configured by firm; reach coded as authorizes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Invoice to payment × Execute the decision
Firm system turns the decision into an action
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Invoice to payment. Execute the decision. Who turns an approval into an action?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool changes the state, prompted by a person in natural language.
How this shapes the decision
It turns a decision that has already been made into an action in the world. It does not form the decision and it does not authorize it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Distributed accountability
A provider configures how the decision is executed. Execution is often the easiest capability to delegate and the hardest to unwind, because the provider that performs it frequently also holds the record of what it did.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Changes the state of the payment block on a supplier invoice, and cancels a posted document.”
Record
control:C-003
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Invoice to payment × Hold the record
Provider platform holds the record of what happened
Performs: Provider platform Configures: Institution
What is happening
Area and capability
Invoice to payment. Hold the record. Who holds what happened, and who learns from it?
Who is doing it
Provider platform. The settled state is held on the payment rails.
How this shapes the decision
It holds the authoritative account of what happened. Whoever holds that account holds what any later review, dispute or renewal is argued from.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The institution. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
An institution. The grounds are set in rule or regulation rather than by either commercial party.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
Provider platform holds the authoritative record of what happened. No inspected source describes outcomes from it feeding back into later decisions.
Why it matters
The terms are not negotiable
An institution sets the grounds here, so this is not a capability the firm can choose to own. What the firm can own is how quickly it notices a change and how cleanly it adapts, which is an operating-model question rather than a sourcing one.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“ACH and FedNow hold the settled state”
Record
control:holder
How this position was coded
Performed by provider platform; configured by institution; reach coded as records. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Supplier onboarding × Set who is eligible
Shared turns the decision into an action
Performs: Shared Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Supplier onboarding. Set who is eligible. Who decided which options may be considered?
Who is doing it
Shared. A tool creates the supplier record. The entitlement to transact is withheld until a separate request is approved.
How this shapes the decision
It creates the record that makes a party eligible to transact. Eligibility here is not advice about who may take part; it is the act that admits them.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Distributed accountability
A provider configures how the decision is executed. Execution is often the easiest capability to delegate and the hardest to unwind, because the provider that performs it frequently also holds the record of what it did.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“The supplier number is assigned from the next sequential n”
Record
control:C-001
How this position was coded
Performed by shared; configured by provider; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Supplier onboarding × Apply the rules
Firm system bounds what may happen
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Supplier onboarding. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool runs the admission checks. This area's agentic capability is coded explicitly absent.
How this shapes the decision
It turns written policy into a rule the process applies. A rule that cannot be expressed here is a policy the process no longer enforces.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Use AI to automate third-party checks like TIN, VAT, OFAC,”
Record
control:C-002
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Supplier onboarding × Execute the decision
Firm system turns the decision into an action
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Supplier onboarding. Execute the decision. Who turns an approval into an action?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool pushes supplier and bank details into the customer's system.
How this shapes the decision
It turns a decision that has already been made into an action in the world. It does not form the decision and it does not authorize it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Distributed accountability
A provider configures how the decision is executed. Execution is often the easiest capability to delegate and the hardest to unwind, because the provider that performs it frequently also holds the record of what it did.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Verifies against internal records or external tax authorities for compliance”
Record
control:C-003
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Supplier onboarding × Hold the record
Provider platform holds the record of what happened
Performs: Provider platform Configures: Institution
What is happening
Area and capability
Supplier onboarding. Hold the record. Who holds what happened, and who learns from it?
Who is doing it
Provider platform. The supplier record and the debarment lists are held by named systems and institutions.
How this shapes the decision
It holds the authoritative account of what happened. Whoever holds that account holds what any later review, dispute or renewal is argued from.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The institution. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
An institution. The grounds are set in rule or regulation rather than by either commercial party.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
Provider platform holds the authoritative record of what happened. No inspected source describes outcomes from it feeding back into later decisions.
Why it matters
The terms are not negotiable
An institution sets the grounds here, so this is not a capability the firm can choose to own. What the firm can own is how quickly it notices a change and how cleanly it adapts, which is an operating-model question rather than a sourcing one.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Oracle's Supplier Master and the customer's ERP hold O-1”
Record
control:holder
How this position was coded
Performed by provider platform; configured by institution; reach coded as records. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Supplier risk × Set who is eligible
Firm system bounds what may happen
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Supplier risk. Set who is eligible. Who decided which options may be considered?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool participates in admitting or rejecting a vendor. The record retains a human path for complex cases.
How this shapes the decision
It bounds the set of options that may be considered at all. Nothing outside the boundary reaches evaluation, so this position shapes the decision without appearing in it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record does not settle whether this capability is an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“better automate customer and vendor approvals and rejections during the onboarding process”
Record
control:C-006
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Supplier risk × Apply the rules
Provider platform supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Provider platform Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Supplier risk. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Provider platform. An external screening service returns a result. What is done with the result is not established.
How this shapes the decision
It supplies the reading that the rule is applied to. It does not itself stop or permit anything.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Embedded, low-latency screening checks within payment and onboarding workflows”
Record
control:C-005
How this position was coded
Performed by provider platform; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Supplier risk × Make it official
Institution makes the outcome official
Performs: Institution Configures: Institution Makes official: Institution
What is happening
Area and capability
Supplier risk. Make it official. Who may say this proceeds?
Who is doing it
Institution. A statutory designation is made by a named office.
How this shapes the decision
It performs the act that makes the outcome official. This is the only capability of the eight that does so.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The institution. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
An institution. The grounds are set in rule or regulation rather than by either commercial party.
Makes the outcome official
Institution. This position is the act that makes the outcome official.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The terms are not negotiable
An institution sets the grounds here, so this is not a capability the firm can choose to own. What the firm can own is how quickly it notices a change and how cleanly it adapts, which is an operating-model question rather than a sourcing one.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The question of whether this is an agent does not arise for this position.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“A Minister of the Crown”
Record
control:authority
How this position was coded
Performed by institution; configured by institution; reach coded as authorizes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Supplier risk × Hold the record
Institution holds the record of what happened
Performs: Institution Configures: Institution
What is happening
Area and capability
Supplier risk. Hold the record. Who holds what happened, and who learns from it?
Who is doing it
Institution. The authoritative list is institutional.
How this shapes the decision
It holds the authoritative account of what happened. Whoever holds that account holds what any later review, dispute or renewal is argued from.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The institution. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
An institution. The grounds are set in rule or regulation rather than by either commercial party.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
Institution holds the authoritative record of what happened. No inspected source describes outcomes from it feeding back into later decisions.
Why it matters
The terms are not negotiable
An institution sets the grounds here, so this is not a capability the firm can choose to own. What the firm can own is how quickly it notices a change and how cleanly it adapts, which is an operating-model question rather than a sourcing one.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Institutions hold O-4 in published registers”
Record
control:holder
How this position was coded
Performed by institution; configured by institution; reach coded as records. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contract lifecycle × Find the alternatives
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Contract lifecycle. Find the alternatives. Who produced the options?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool produces the draft a review works from.
How this shapes the decision
It produces the options the next step works from. Which options exist bounds every judgement made after this point.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Reduce contract drafting times from days to minutes by instantly turning user inputs into review-ready contracts.”
Record
control:C-004
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contract lifecycle × Evaluate and choose
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Contract lifecycle. Evaluate and choose. Who judged the options, and how far did that judgement go?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool supplies the comparison. The record names deciding as remaining with a person.
How this shapes the decision
It supplies material for the judgement without ordering the options or naming one.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Intelligent contracting will use Joule to automatically extract key information, generate summaries, and search historical contracts for discrepancies and compliance issues.”
Record
control:C-005
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contract lifecycle × Execute the decision
Firm system turns the decision into an action
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Contract lifecycle. Execute the decision. Who turns an approval into an action?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool acts toward the counterparty. Whether a person must sign is not stated on either inspected source.
How this shapes the decision
It turns a decision that has already been made into an action in the world. It does not form the decision and it does not authorize it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Distributed accountability
A provider configures how the decision is executed. Execution is often the easiest capability to delegate and the hardest to unwind, because the provider that performs it frequently also holds the record of what it did.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“sends revised drafts to counterparties, tracks responses, and reacts in real time to changes made by the counterparty's AI.”
Record
control:C-001
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contract lifecycle × Hold the record
Firm system holds the record of what happened
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Contract lifecycle. Hold the record. Who holds what happened, and who learns from it?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool writes and maintains the obligation record.
How this shapes the decision
It holds the authoritative account of what happened. Whoever holds that account holds what any later review, dispute or renewal is argued from.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
Firm system holds the authoritative record of what happened. No inspected source describes outcomes from it feeding back into later decisions.
Why it matters
Portability and architectural knowledge
A provider configures the position that holds the account of what happened. A record the firm cannot export is a negotiating position it does not have at the next renewal, and the knowledge of how decisions were actually made can leave with the provider.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“enable all extracted obligations to automatically populate a linked set of tables designed for tracking tasks, deadlines, and dependencies”
Record
control:C-007
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as records. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contingent workforce × Frame the requirement
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Contingent workforce. Frame the requirement. Who defined what the firm needs?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool states what the work must deliver. Whether a person authors or edits it is not stated.
How this shapes the decision
It composes the request itself. Everyone downstream reads the requirement in the words this actor chose, and a requirement only one supplier can meet has already narrowed the choice.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record does not settle whether this capability is an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“analyzes project scope and automatically generates precise deliverables”
Record
control:C-004
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contingent workforce × Set who is eligible
Counterparty turns the decision into an action
Performs: Counterparty Configures: Counterparty
What is happening
Area and capability
Contingent workforce. Set who is eligible. Who decided which options may be considered?
Who is doing it
Counterparty. A counterparty becomes the hiring entity and takes on the answerability. The only record in which answerability is described as being taken on by another party.
How this shapes the decision
It creates the record that makes a party eligible to transact. Eligibility here is not advice about who may take part; it is the act that admits them.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The counterparty. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The counterparty. The other side of the transaction sets the terms this position applies.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The other side sets the terms
The counterparty configures this position, so the firm's leverage sits in the commercial relationship rather than in its own systems. Accountability for the outcome still rests with the firm.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“become[s] their agent of record, taking on the liability for employers.”
Record
control:C-005
How this position was coded
Performed by counterparty; configured by counterparty; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contingent workforce × Find the alternatives
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Contingent workforce. Find the alternatives. Who produced the options?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool produces the candidate set.
How this shapes the decision
It produces the options the next step works from. Which options exist bounds every judgement made after this point.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Identified candidates and streamlined screening.”
Record
control:C-002
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contingent workforce × Apply the rules
Institution bounds what may happen
Performs: Institution Configures: Institution
What is happening
Area and capability
Contingent workforce. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Institution. An institution changed the rule every engagement is assessed against.
How this shapes the decision
It turns written policy into a rule the process applies. A rule that cannot be expressed here is a policy the process no longer enforces.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The institution. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
An institution. The grounds are set in rule or regulation rather than by either commercial party.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The terms are not negotiable
An institution sets the grounds here, so this is not a capability the firm can choose to own. What the firm can own is how quickly it notices a change and how cleanly it adapts, which is an operating-model question rather than a sourcing one.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The question of whether this is an agent does not arise for this position.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“The test by which a worker is classified is replaced”
Record
movement:MV-CWKF-EV-01
How this position was coded
Performed by institution; configured by institution; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Contingent workforce × Execute the decision
Firm system turns the decision into an action
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Contingent workforce. Execute the decision. Who turns an approval into an action?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A rule named as an agent revises the cost centre. It is a general-ledger rule.
How this shapes the decision
It turns a decision that has already been made into an action in the world. It does not form the decision and it does not authorize it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Distributed accountability
A provider configures how the decision is executed. Execution is often the easiest capability to delegate and the hardest to unwind, because the provider that performs it frequently also holds the record of what it did.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“cost center start and end dates are revised”
Record
control:C-008
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Direct materials × Frame the requirement
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Direct materials. Frame the requirement. Who defined what the firm needs?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool states the sourcing event the firm will run.
How this shapes the decision
It composes the request itself. Everyone downstream reads the requirement in the words this actor chose, and a requirement only one supplier can meet has already narrowed the choice.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“builds complete sourcing events”
Record
control:C-003
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Direct materials × Set who is eligible
Firm system bounds what may happen
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Direct materials. Set who is eligible. Who decided which options may be considered?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A rule set decides what will not be quoted at all.
How this shapes the decision
It bounds the set of options that may be considered at all. Nothing outside the boundary reaches evaluation, so this position shapes the decision without appearing in it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“detect high-risk conditions on prints and link them to decisions or actions (e.g., no-quote, update the router, assign an estimator)”
Record
control:C-005
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Direct materials × Find the alternatives
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Direct materials. Find the alternatives. Who produced the options?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool produces the buyer's offer and runs the rounds.
How this shapes the decision
It produces the options the next step works from. Which options exist bounds every judgement made after this point.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Arkestro establishes data-backed suggested pricing and automates multi-round supplier engagement”
Record
control:C-004
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Direct materials × Evaluate and choose
Firm system puts the options in order
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
Direct materials. Evaluate and choose. Who judged the options, and how far did that judgement go?
Who is doing it
Firm system. A tool ranks the bids and recommends an award. The record names the award decision itself as remaining with a person, and the routing to human review is a configured parameter.
How this shapes the decision
It puts the options in an order. Ranking is not choosing, but whoever sets the ordering decides which option is read first and which looks best.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
A strategic capability sits with a provider
Whoever sets the weights decides which option looks best. A provider configuring this position shapes the choice without appearing in it, and accountability for the outcome stays with the firm. This is a capability to configure rather than delegate.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Model award scenarios across cost, risk, quality, sustainability, and supplier capacity simultaneously”
Record
control:C-002
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as ranks. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Direct materials × Apply the rules
Counterparty bounds what may happen
Performs: Counterparty Configures: Counterparty
What is happening
Area and capability
Direct materials. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Counterparty. A counterparty now sets the form of the approval for its own suppliers.
How this shapes the decision
It turns written policy into a rule the process applies. A rule that cannot be expressed here is a policy the process no longer enforces.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The counterparty. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The counterparty. The other side of the transaction sets the terms this position applies.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The other side sets the terms
The counterparty configures this position, so the firm's leverage sits in the commercial relationship rather than in its own systems. Accountability for the outcome still rests with the firm.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The question of whether this is an agent does not arise for this position.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“A customer substitutes its own package for the industry method”
Record
movement:MV-DIRE-EV-11
How this position was coded
Performed by counterparty; configured by counterparty; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
Direct materials × Make it official
Shared makes the outcome official
Performs: Shared Configures: Firm Makes official: Shared
What is happening
Area and capability
Direct materials. Make it official. Who may say this proceeds?
Who is doing it
Shared. The record names both a person and a system.
How this shapes the decision
It performs the act that makes the outcome official. This is the only capability of the eight that does so.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The firm. The record codes the configuration of this position to the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The firm, directly.
Makes the outcome official
Shared. This position is the act that makes the outcome official.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Configuration authority worth keeping
This is one of the few positions the firm still configures. The question is not whether to keep it but whether keeping it is enough, given that the requirement, the options and the rules that reach it are configured elsewhere.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The question of whether this is an agent does not arise for this position.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“The customer, exercised through a named person or a named system”
Record
control:authority
How this position was coded
Performed by shared; configured by firm; reach coded as authorizes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
SaaS acquisition × Evaluate and choose
Firm system supplies what the next step works from
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
SaaS acquisition. Evaluate and choose. Who judged the options, and how far did that judgement go?
Who is doing it
Firm system. This area was assessed under a different method and its records carry no operation text, so it cannot be coded at the same depth as the other nine.
How this shapes the decision
It supplies material for the judgement without ordering the options or naming one.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record does not settle whether this capability is an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“This area was assessed before the shared method existed, so its rows answer slightly different questions.”
Record
control:regime
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as informs. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
SaaS acquisition × Apply the rules
Provider platform bounds what may happen
Performs: Provider platform Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
SaaS acquisition. Apply the rules. Who turned company policy into rules the process applies?
Who is doing it
Provider platform. The firm keeps the approvals and an external platform sets the structure of what is being approved.
How this shapes the decision
It turns written policy into a rule the process applies. A rule that cannot be expressed here is a policy the process no longer enforces.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“AWS Marketplace requires a two-step approval in the customer's procurement system”
Record
lateral:LA-AWSM-EV-02
How this position was coded
Performed by provider platform; configured by provider; reach coded as constrains. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
SaaS acquisition × Make it official
Provider platform makes the outcome official
Performs: Provider platform Configures: Provider Makes official: Provider platform
What is happening
Area and capability
SaaS acquisition. Make it official. Who may say this proceeds?
Who is doing it
Provider platform. An approval step the customer's own system would perform is answered instead by a setting the platform holds.
How this shapes the decision
It performs the act that makes the outcome official. This is the only capability of the eight that does so.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Provider platform. This position is the act that makes the outcome official.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
The decision is shaped before anyone sees it
A provider configures a position that narrows or frames what reaches the approver. Nothing here transfers authority, and that is the point: the approver can be unchanged while what they see is produced by a party the firm does not configure.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“so that they are never submitted to the customer's procurement system for approval”
Record
lateral:LA-AWSM-EV-01
How this position was coded
Performed by provider platform; configured by provider; reach coded as authorizes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
SaaS acquisition × Execute the decision
Firm system turns the decision into an action
Performs: Firm system Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
SaaS acquisition. Execute the decision. Who turns an approval into an action?
Who is doing it
Firm system. One capability in this area is coded as acting rather than preparing.
How this shapes the decision
It turns a decision that has already been made into an action in the world. It does not form the decision and it does not authorize it.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
The record does not say. No inspected source describes who keeps the data this position produces, or whether anything learns from it.
Why it matters
Distributed accountability
A provider configures how the decision is executed. Execution is often the easiest capability to delegate and the hardest to unwind, because the provider that performs it frequently also holds the record of what it did.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record does not settle whether this capability is an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“Spendflo Flo AI”
Record
control:C-005
How this position was coded
Performed by firm system; configured by provider; reach coded as executes. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
SaaS acquisition × Hold the record
Provider platform holds the record of what happened
Performs: Provider platform Configures: Provider
What is happening
Area and capability
SaaS acquisition. Hold the record. Who holds what happened, and who learns from it?
Who is doing it
Provider platform. The record of what was bought is held by the platform.
How this shapes the decision
It holds the authoritative account of what happened. Whoever holds that account holds what any later review, dispute or renewal is argued from.
What the firm controls
Sets the objectives and thresholds
The provider. The record codes the configuration of this position outside the firm, so the objectives and thresholds this capability runs on are not set by the buying organisation.
Configures the rules
The provider, through whatever its configuration surface allows. What cannot be expressed there cannot be asked of this capability.
Makes the outcome official
Not this position. Making an outcome official is a separate capability, and no reading of this cell establishes anything about who holds it.
Holds the data and the learning
Provider platform holds the authoritative record of what happened. No inspected source describes outcomes from it feeding back into later decisions.
Why it matters
Portability and architectural knowledge
A provider configures the position that holds the account of what happened. A record the firm cannot export is a negotiating position it does not have at the next renewal, and the knowledge of how decisions were actually made can leave with the provider.
What this position does not show
One coded position in one of ten examined areas, read from a single quoted passage. It supports no claim about how common this arrangement is. The record codes this capability as conventional software rather than an agent.
Source and derivation
The passage this reading is taken from
“The marketplace platform holds the offer and the entitlement record”
Record
control:holder
How this position was coded
Performed by provider platform; configured by provider; reach coded as records. The quote above is checked against the named record on every build, and a quote that has drifted fails it.
The operating models
The same journey can support very different operating models.
Select an operating model to see what changes across the same procurement journey. Compare Provider-led with Firm-configured to see why configuration matters.
The baseline Visible now
People perform the work and manage the handoffs between stages.
This is the journey before any of it is rearranged. Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Scenario one Visible now
Each function buys a tool, and the work inside each stage gets lighter.
Every stage on the journey has offerings described acting inside it. None of them coordinates work across stages, so the handoffs stay exactly where they were.
Scenario two Visible now
A provider connects several stages and configures how the connection works.
The evidence includes providers that coordinate work across several stages rather than operating inside only one. The provider then sets some of the rules and thresholds used across the connected path.
Scenario three Scenario
The same connections, with the firm setting the terms they run on.
The firm uses agents and providers to connect the same stages while retaining the objectives, rules, thresholds, intervention rights and learning.
Scenario four Scenario
Several actors each coordinate a part, and nobody coordinates the whole.
Different parties already hold different parts of a buying decision. Arranged as an operating model, that means specialist capability at each segment and an open question at every seam between them.
Configured on the journey
Configured on the journey
Configured on the journey
Manual work reduced
None. People perform the work at every stage.
Human judgment retained
- People perform the work at every stage.
- People decide what the answer is.
- People manage the handoff from one stage to the next.
New capabilities required
None yet.
Manual work reduced
- Drafting requirements
- Researching suppliers
- Summarising proposals
- Matching documents
- Routine reconciliation
Human judgment retained
- Setting the business outcome
- Weighing material trade-offs
- Negotiating consequential terms
- Approving
- Resolving exceptions
New capabilities required
Manual work reduced
- Preparing and transferring information across stages
- Re-entering the same information
- Routine routing between functions
- Reconciliation between connected systems
Human judgment retained
- Defining the business objective
- Consequential trade-offs
- Formal approval
- Material exceptions
New capabilities required
Manual work reduced
- Routine preparation
- Routing between functions
- Repeated handoffs
- Checking
- Reconciliation
Human judgment retained
- Setting the objectives
- Resolving important trade-offs
- Approving consequential decisions
- Handling material exceptions
New capabilities required
Manual work reduced
- Preparation and routine execution inside each actor's own domain
- Transferring information between systems where an interface already exists
Human judgment retained
- Business intent
- Consequential exceptions
- Accountability for the final result
- Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules
New capabilities required
The trade-off Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
Likely when Investment, accountability and data remain organised by function.
The fuller conditions
- Each function owns its own stage and is measured on it.
- The connections between stages belong to nobody in particular.
The trade-off Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
Likely when AI programmes are funded stage by stage and measured through speed or cost.
The fuller conditions
- AI investment is funded function by function.
- Success is measured through efficiency and speed.
- Data and governance stay fragmented.
- Redesigning work across functions is outside the programme's mandate.
The trade-off Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
Likely when A provider already controls relevant data or infrastructure, and the firm prioritises deployment speed.
The fuller conditions
- A provider already holds relevant data, transactions, supplier access, contracts or the system of record.
- That provider can connect several stages.
- The firm prioritises speed of deployment.
- The firm's own ability to design decisions is weak or split across functions.
The trade-off Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
Likely when The decision is strategically important, the firm has distinctive knowledge, and leaders invest across functions.
The fuller conditions
- The decision matters strategically.
- The firm has distinctive data, policies or operating knowledge.
- Leaders will invest across functional boundaries.
- The firm needs to be able to change provider.
- What the firm learns from its own decisions is worth keeping.
The trade-off Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
Likely when Several providers or institutions control essential parts of the journey, and no single actor can coordinate it alone.
The fuller conditions
- Several providers or institutions hold necessary parts of the journey.
- No single actor can coordinate the whole purchase.
- Regulation binds particular stages.
- The firm depends on more than one external control point.
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval. This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Choose a stage, a connected path or a new capability to read what changes, what stays human, what the firm has to add, and how far the evidence goes.
Current model · Need
Today: interpret the business need
Visible now
What changes
Interpret the business need. A person passes a written request to whoever will turn it into a specification.
What remains human
What the business is actually trying to achieve, and whether buying anything is the right answer.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Current model · Define
Today: prepare the requirements
Visible now
What changes
Prepare the requirements. A person passes the specification to whoever will look for suppliers.
What remains human
Which requirements are genuine constraints and which are preferences somebody wrote down.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Current model · Find
Today: search for suppliers
Visible now
What changes
Search for suppliers. A person passes the candidate list to whoever will compare the offers.
What remains human
Whether the list is the right list, and who is missing from it.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Current model · Compare
Today: compare the proposals
Visible now
What changes
Compare the proposals. A person passes the comparison to whoever will settle terms.
What remains human
The trade-offs that matter, and which of them the firm is willing to accept.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Current model · Check
Today: check the evidence holds up
Visible now
What changes
Check the evidence holds up. A person passes the cleared status to whoever will agree terms or release payment.
What remains human
What to do when the evidence does not clear, which is where the real work is.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Current model · Negotiate
Today: prepare the negotiating position
Visible now
What changes
Prepare the negotiating position. A person passes the agreed terms to whoever can commit the money.
What remains human
What the firm will concede, and what it will not.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Current model · Approve
Today: approve
Visible now
What changes
Approve. A person passes the approved request to whoever will place the order.
What remains human
The act of committing the firm, and answering for it afterwards.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Current model · Order
Today: create the order
Visible now
What changes
Create the order. The order goes out, and what is delivered is passed back to be checked.
What remains human
Whether what was ordered is what was agreed.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Current model · Pay
Today: reconcile and pay
Visible now
What changes
Reconcile and pay. The transaction closes and the record is filed.
What remains human
What to do about a mismatch, and whether to pay anyway.
What the firm must add
Nothing. This is the arrangement the other four states are measured against.
Why this model emerges
None. This is the starting point.
What the firm gains and risks
Established functional ownership, but slow and fragmented coordination.
If it does not happen
None.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
The plain-language activity at this stage, as the Observatory's own journey describes it.
The mechanism
A person does the work and hands the result to the next stage.
Why it matters to you
Every stage is somebody's job, and every connection between two stages is somebody's effort.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Need
Interpret the business need
Visible now
What changes
Requests are drafted, classified and routed rather than written from scratch.
What remains human
What the business is actually trying to achieve, and whether buying anything is the right answer.
What the firm must add
Someone to check that a classified request still says what the business meant.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
21 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Need.
The mechanism
Intake tools read the request and decide how it is categorised and where it goes.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Define
Prepare the requirements
Visible now
What changes
Requirements are drafted from a stated intent rather than composed by hand.
What remains human
Which requirements are genuine constraints and which are preferences somebody wrote down.
What the firm must add
A review step, because a specification only one supplier can meet has already chosen the supplier.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
28 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Define.
The mechanism
Requirement tools turn a described need into a brief.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Find
Search for suppliers
Visible now
What changes
Candidate suppliers are searched, shortlisted and enriched rather than assembled by hand.
What remains human
Whether the list is the right list, and who is missing from it.
What the firm must add
Someone who notices who is missing from a list they did not build.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
20 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Find.
The mechanism
Sourcing tools produce supplier options from a roster and their own databases.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Compare
Compare the proposals
Visible now
What changes
Proposals are summarised and scored rather than read side by side.
What remains human
The trade-offs that matter, and which of them the firm is willing to accept.
What the firm must add
Judgement about which trade-offs matter, which a score cannot hold.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
17 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Compare.
The mechanism
Evaluation tools grade responses against stated criteria.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Check
Check the evidence holds up
Visible now
What changes
Documents and claims are matched and screened rather than checked line by line.
What remains human
What to do when the evidence does not clear, which is where the real work is.
What the firm must add
A way of handling what does not clear, which is where the work actually is.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
31 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Check.
The mechanism
Matching and screening tools determine whether the evidence reconciles.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Negotiate
Prepare the negotiating position
Visible now
What changes
Positions are benchmarked and drafted rather than built from memory.
What remains human
What the firm will concede, and what it will not.
What the firm must add
The decision about what the firm will concede.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
15 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Negotiate.
The mechanism
Negotiation tools benchmark prices and draft positions.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Approve
Approve
Visible now
What changes
Requests reach the approver pre-checked and pre-routed rather than chased.
What remains human
The act of committing the firm, and answering for it afterwards.
What the firm must add
The act of approval itself, and someone who answers for it.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
18 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Approve.
The mechanism
Routing tools assemble and pre-check what reaches an approver.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Order
Create the order
Visible now
What changes
Purchasing documents are generated rather than keyed.
What remains human
Whether what was ordered is what was agreed.
What the firm must add
A check that what was ordered is what was agreed.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
9 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Order.
The mechanism
Order tools finalise the award and generate the documents.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · Pay
Reconcile and pay
Visible now
What changes
Invoices are matched and posted rather than reconciled by hand.
What remains human
What to do about a mismatch, and whether to pay anyway.
What the firm must add
The decision about what to do with a mismatch.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
25 of the 54 examined offerings are described having an effect at Pay.
The mechanism
Payment tools post an approved invoice ready for payment.
Why it matters to you
Effort falls inside this stage. Nothing here changes who manages the handoff to the next one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · New capability
Local AI implementation
Analytical implication
What changes
The ability to put a tool into one function's work and keep it running.
What remains human
Setting the business outcome. Weighing material trade-offs. Negotiating consequential terms. Approving. Resolving exceptions.
What the firm must add
Each stage adopts on its own, so each function needs its own competence.
Why this model emerges
AI investment is funded function by function. Success is measured through efficiency and speed. Data and governance stay fragmented. Redesigning work across functions is outside the programme's mandate.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Each stage adopts on its own, so each function needs its own competence.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · New capability
Output review
Analytical implication
What changes
A standing check on what the tool produced before it is used.
What remains human
Setting the business outcome. Weighing material trade-offs. Negotiating consequential terms. Approving. Resolving exceptions.
What the firm must add
Nothing downstream will catch a plausible answer that is wrong.
Why this model emerges
AI investment is funded function by function. Success is measured through efficiency and speed. Data and governance stay fragmented. Redesigning work across functions is outside the programme's mandate.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Nothing downstream will catch a plausible answer that is wrong.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Task automation · New capability
Task-level quality controls
Analytical implication
What changes
A measure of whether the tool's output is good enough, at the stage that produces it.
What remains human
Setting the business outcome. Weighing material trade-offs. Negotiating consequential terms. Approving. Resolving exceptions.
What the firm must add
With no connection between stages, quality can only be judged where it is made.
Why this model emerges
AI investment is funded function by function. Success is measured through efficiency and speed. Data and governance stay fragmented. Redesigning work across functions is outside the programme's mandate.
What the firm gains and risks
Less effort within individual stages, but people still coordinate the journey.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
With no connection between stages, quality can only be judged where it is made.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Provider-led coordination · Define to Approve
Globality connects these stages
Visible now
What changes
A stated business need becomes a brief, supplier options and a comparison for the person making the award decision.
What remains human
Defining the business objective. Consequential trade-offs. Formal approval. Material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Provider governance, Portability management, Intervention design.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
One examined offering takes requester project intent and returns a concise brief, merit-based supplier options and a proposal comparison to the buyer making the award decision.
The mechanism
Four stages that were four separate handoffs become one product of one provider's configuration. The requester answers an intake dialogue, and the comparison is produced for the approver rather than assembled by them.
Why it matters to you
The award decision is preserved in the record. What the approver sees was produced by a party the firm does not configure.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Provider-led coordination · Need to Order
Oracle connects these stages
Visible now
What changes
Eligible requisition lines are turned into a published negotiation, the responses are awarded, and the purchasing documents are generated from that award.
What remains human
Defining the business objective. Consequential trade-offs. Formal approval. Material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Provider governance, Portability management, Intervention design.
Why this model emerges
None. This is what the record describes, not a configuration that has to be reached.
What the firm gains and risks
Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
If it does not happen
None. The question is not whether this happens but how far it goes.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
One examined offering runs from eligible requisition lines to a published negotiation and an applied award, with the purchasing documents generated by a subsequent job.
The mechanism
A published sourcing policy and three jobs in order connect a request from the requisition to the purchasing documents without a person managing any handoff in between.
Why it matters to you
The record states that negotiation and award approval are conditional on approvals being enabled. A preserved human gate that is a configuration setting is a gate somebody can turn off.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Provider-led coordination · Check to Pay
Vic.ai connects these stages
Visible now
What changes
Invoice, order and receipt information is matched into an approved invoice, which the customer's payment process then applies.
What remains human
Defining the business objective. Consequential trade-offs. Formal approval. Material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Provider governance, Portability management, Intervention design.
Why this model emerges
A purchase order associated with the invoice, and extreme confidence across all predictions.
What the firm gains and risks
Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
If it does not happen
Below that confidence the invoice returns to a person, and the checking stage stays where it was.
Evidence and status
Visible now
Described in a governed record of what providers currently do.
What supports it
One examined offering takes an invoice, a purchase order and a receipt and returns an approved and matched invoice to the customer's payment process.
The mechanism
Where the tool is extremely confident across all its predictions, the invoice goes straight through.
Why it matters to you
This is the one span in the record where the human check is described as bypassed rather than preserved. It is worth knowing which of your spans is that one.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Provider-led coordination · New capability
Provider governance
Analytical implication
What changes
The ability to hold a provider to what its connected path may and may not do.
What remains human
Defining the business objective. Consequential trade-offs. Formal approval. Material exceptions.
What the firm must add
The span crosses functions that each used to govern their own stage. None of them governs it now.
Why this model emerges
A provider already holds relevant data, transactions, supplier access, contracts or the system of record. That provider can connect several stages. The firm prioritises speed of deployment. The firm's own ability to design decisions is weak or split across functions.
What the firm gains and risks
Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
The span crosses functions that each used to govern their own stage. None of them governs it now.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Provider-led coordination · New capability
Portability management
Analytical implication
What changes
Keeping the data, the rules and the history in a form that could leave.
What remains human
Defining the business objective. Consequential trade-offs. Formal approval. Material exceptions.
What the firm must add
A connected path is the hardest thing to unpick, because the connection is the product.
Why this model emerges
A provider already holds relevant data, transactions, supplier access, contracts or the system of record. That provider can connect several stages. The firm prioritises speed of deployment. The firm's own ability to design decisions is weak or split across functions.
What the firm gains and risks
Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
A connected path is the hardest thing to unpick, because the connection is the product.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Provider-led coordination · New capability
Intervention design
Analytical implication
What changes
Deciding in advance where a person can stop the path, and making sure they can.
What remains human
Defining the business objective. Consequential trade-offs. Formal approval. Material exceptions.
What the firm must add
One examined span describes its human review as bypassed on the autonomous route.
Why this model emerges
A provider already holds relevant data, transactions, supplier access, contracts or the system of record. That provider can connect several stages. The firm prioritises speed of deployment. The firm's own ability to design decisions is weak or split across functions.
What the firm gains and risks
Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
One examined span describes its human review as bypassed on the autonomous route.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Provider-led coordination · New capability
Decision-quality oversight
Analytical implication
What changes
Measuring whether the outcomes are good, not only whether the path ran.
What remains human
Defining the business objective. Consequential trade-offs. Formal approval. Material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Speed is easy to see and a worse decision is not.
Why this model emerges
A provider already holds relevant data, transactions, supplier access, contracts or the system of record. That provider can connect several stages. The firm prioritises speed of deployment. The firm's own ability to design decisions is weak or split across functions.
What the firm gains and risks
Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Speed is easy to see and a worse decision is not.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Provider-led coordination · New capability
Protecting data and architectural knowledge
Analytical implication
What changes
Keeping enough of how the decision is made inside the firm to rebuild it.
What remains human
Defining the business objective. Consequential trade-offs. Formal approval. Material exceptions.
What the firm must add
The provider that configures a path is the party that understands it.
Why this model emerges
A provider already holds relevant data, transactions, supplier access, contracts or the system of record. That provider can connect several stages. The firm prioritises speed of deployment. The firm's own ability to design decisions is weak or split across functions.
What the firm gains and risks
Faster coordination, but greater dependence on provider rules, data and architecture.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
The provider that configures a path is the party that understands it.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · Define to Approve
Firm configures this connection
Scenario
What changes
The same span from a stated intent to an award decision, with the criteria, the eligible supplier set and the weights set by the firm.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Decision architecture, Constraint design, Agent configuration.
Why this model emerges
The firm can state the objective, the constraints, the evaluation criteria and the thresholds for this span, change them without a support request, reach the data, intervene, and keep the record of what happened. Buying the technology is compatible with all of that. Not being able to change a threshold is not.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The criteria stay the provider's defaults, and the comparison that reaches the approver is shaped by a party the firm did not configure.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 coded decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all five are the act of approval. Every connected span in the record is configured by a provider.
The mechanism
The firm writes what a good requirement contains and which trade-offs matter, and a provider's technology applies them.
Why it matters to you
The question is not whether to build the software. It is whether the terms the software runs on are yours.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · Need to Order
Firm configures this connection
Scenario
What changes
The same span from a request to an order, with the policy, the thresholds and the points at which a person must be asked set by the firm.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Decision architecture, Constraint design, Agent configuration.
Why this model emerges
The firm can state the objective, the constraints, the evaluation criteria and the thresholds for this span, change them without a support request, reach the data, intervene, and keep the record of what happened. Buying the technology is compatible with all of that. Not being able to change a threshold is not.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The approval gate remains a provider setting, and stays enabled only for as long as somebody remembers why it was.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 coded decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all five are the act of approval. Every connected span in the record is configured by a provider.
The mechanism
The firm decides what may run without being asked, and holds the switch that decides it.
Why it matters to you
The question is not whether to build the software. It is whether the terms the software runs on are yours.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · Check to Pay
Firm configures this connection
Scenario
What changes
The same span from evidence to payment, with the confidence threshold, the exception route and the retained record set by the firm.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Decision architecture, Constraint design, Agent configuration.
Why this model emerges
The firm can state the objective, the constraints, the evaluation criteria and the thresholds for this span, change them without a support request, reach the data, intervene, and keep the record of what happened. Buying the technology is compatible with all of that. Not being able to change a threshold is not.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The threshold is the provider's, and the firm discovers where it was set by finding out what went through.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 coded decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all five are the act of approval. Every connected span in the record is configured by a provider.
The mechanism
The firm sets how sure the check has to be before money moves, and what happens when it is not.
Why it matters to you
The question is not whether to build the software. It is whether the terms the software runs on are yours.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · New capability
Decision architecture
Scenario
What changes
Designing how a decision is formed across stages, rather than improving each stage.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Nobody owns the connection today, and under this scenario the connection is the product.
Why this model emerges
The decision matters strategically. The firm has distinctive data, policies or operating knowledge. Leaders will invest across functional boundaries. The firm needs to be able to change provider. What the firm learns from its own decisions is worth keeping.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Nobody owns the connection today, and under this scenario the connection is the product.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · New capability
Constraint design
Scenario
What changes
Writing down what the firm will and will not accept, in a form a system can apply.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
A constraint you cannot express is a policy the process no longer enforces.
Why this model emerges
The decision matters strategically. The firm has distinctive data, policies or operating knowledge. Leaders will invest across functional boundaries. The firm needs to be able to change provider. What the firm learns from its own decisions is worth keeping.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
A constraint you cannot express is a policy the process no longer enforces.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · New capability
Agent configuration
Scenario
What changes
Setting the objectives, the criteria and the thresholds, and changing them directly.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Configuration through a support request is somebody else's configuration.
Why this model emerges
The decision matters strategically. The firm has distinctive data, policies or operating knowledge. Leaders will invest across functional boundaries. The firm needs to be able to change provider. What the firm learns from its own decisions is worth keeping.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Configuration through a support request is somebody else's configuration.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · New capability
Exception governance
Scenario
What changes
Deciding what happens when the path cannot proceed, and who answers for it.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
A connected path fails at the exception, not at the ordinary case.
Why this model emerges
The decision matters strategically. The firm has distinctive data, policies or operating knowledge. Leaders will invest across functional boundaries. The firm needs to be able to change provider. What the firm learns from its own decisions is worth keeping.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
A connected path fails at the exception, not at the ordinary case.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · New capability
Decision-quality measurement
Scenario
What changes
Knowing whether the decisions got better, not only faster.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
Without it the firm has bought speed and cannot tell what it cost.
Why this model emerges
The decision matters strategically. The firm has distinctive data, policies or operating knowledge. Leaders will invest across functional boundaries. The firm needs to be able to change provider. What the firm learns from its own decisions is worth keeping.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Without it the firm has bought speed and cannot tell what it cost.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · New capability
Learning ownership
Scenario
What changes
Keeping the outcome history in a form the firm can read without the provider.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
No inspected source describes outcomes feeding back into later decisions. It is the least evidenced capability and the one that compounds.
Why this model emerges
The decision matters strategically. The firm has distinctive data, policies or operating knowledge. Leaders will invest across functional boundaries. The firm needs to be able to change provider. What the firm learns from its own decisions is worth keeping.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
No inspected source describes outcomes feeding back into later decisions. It is the least evidenced capability and the one that compounds.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Firm-configured coordination · New capability
Cross-functional product ownership
Scenario
What changes
One named owner for a span that crosses several functions.
What remains human
Setting the objectives. Resolving important trade-offs. Approving consequential decisions. Handling material exceptions.
What the firm must add
A span owned by four functions is owned by none of them.
Why this model emerges
The decision matters strategically. The firm has distinctive data, policies or operating knowledge. Leaders will invest across functional boundaries. The firm needs to be able to change provider. What the firm learns from its own decisions is worth keeping.
What the firm gains and risks
Greater control, portability and learning, but higher investment in data, governance and internal capability.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
A span owned by four functions is owned by none of them.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · Need to Define
The business configures this connection
Scenario
What changes
The requesting team states what it needs and what a good answer looks like, in its own tools.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
Multi-party governance, Interoperability, Control-point management.
Why this model emerges
The requesting function has tooling of its own and the authority to use it.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
Intent is restated inside procurement's tools, and the business's own framing is lost at the boundary.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Three of the coded positions where a requirement is framed are configured by a provider and none by the firm's own function.
The mechanism
Where the business states intent in its own systems, procurement receives a requirement already shaped by whatever those systems can express.
Why it matters to you
The earliest decision is made furthest from procurement, and it bounds everything after it.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · Find to Compare
A procurement provider configures this connection
Analytical implication
What changes
Supplier options are produced and compared by a provider that holds the supplier data.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
Multi-party governance, Interoperability, Control-point management.
Why this model emerges
The provider's data is better than the firm's own, which is usually true of market breadth and usually false of the firm's own supplier history.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
The firm joins outside breadth to its own history and keeps the joining rule.
Evidence and status
Analytical implication
A mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
What supports it
Examined offerings are described producing supplier options and grading responses, and the coded record puts the configuration of evaluation with a provider in every one of the seven areas where it appears.
The mechanism
Whoever holds the supplier data produces the list, and whoever sets the weights decides which option looks best.
Why it matters to you
This segment is the one most often mistaken for a tool when it is a judgement.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · Negotiate to Approve
Legal and institutional rule configures this connection
Scenario
What changes
Terms and the act of committing are bounded by contract systems and by rules set outside either commercial party.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
Multi-party governance, Interoperability, Control-point management.
Why this model emerges
The firm's approvals live inside a platform whose interface can write them, or inside a regime whose rules bind it.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
Approval stays an act with a named person attached and an audit trail behind it.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
The record describes a contract platform where an interface credential holding the right scope sets an approval to approved, and a payments platform that declines a transaction at authorisation against a configured policy. Seven coded positions are configured by an institution rather than by either party.
The mechanism
Approval becomes a state that a credential or a rule can set, rather than an act a person performs.
Why it matters to you
An approval policy that one role can set aside is a routing rule, not a control.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · Order to Pay
A payments platform configures this connection
Scenario
What changes
The order, the credential and the transaction record sit with the platform that moves the money.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
Multi-party governance, Interoperability, Control-point management.
Why this model emerges
The firm's payments run through a platform that also holds the authoritative record.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
The firm retains an exportable record of what was decided and on what basis, independently of the rail that executed it.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
The record describes a platform creating a virtual card on approval whose limit comes from the approved order total, and a payments platform permitting an administrator to pay a bill regardless of its approval status.
The mechanism
Execution and the record of execution sit with the same party, which is what makes the arrangement hard to unwind.
Why it matters to you
A record you cannot export is a negotiating position you do not have at renewal.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · New capability
Multi-party governance
Scenario
What changes
Holding several parties to one arrangement none of them owns.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
Every seam is a place where two sets of rules meet and neither yields.
Why this model emerges
Several providers or institutions hold necessary parts of the journey. No single actor can coordinate the whole purchase. Regulation binds particular stages. The firm depends on more than one external control point.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Every seam is a place where two sets of rules meet and neither yields.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · New capability
Interoperability
Scenario
What changes
Making the segments join without a person carrying work between them.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
Four connected segments with three manual joins is the old journey with more vendors.
Why this model emerges
Several providers or institutions hold necessary parts of the journey. No single actor can coordinate the whole purchase. Regulation binds particular stages. The firm depends on more than one external control point.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Four connected segments with three manual joins is the old journey with more vendors.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · New capability
Control-point management
Scenario
What changes
Knowing which party can stop, change or see each part, and keeping that list current.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
A dependency you have not named is one you cannot price.
Why this model emerges
Several providers or institutions hold necessary parts of the journey. No single actor can coordinate the whole purchase. Regulation binds particular stages. The firm depends on more than one external control point.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
A dependency you have not named is one you cannot price.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · New capability
Shared auditability
Scenario
What changes
One account of what happened that every party contributes to and the firm can read.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
Four records of a decision are not a record of a decision.
Why this model emerges
Several providers or institutions hold necessary parts of the journey. No single actor can coordinate the whole purchase. Regulation binds particular stages. The firm depends on more than one external control point.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Four records of a decision are not a record of a decision.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · New capability
Cross-organisational escalation
Scenario
What changes
A route for a problem that no single party can resolve alone.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
The exceptions land in the seams, which is where nobody is on duty.
Why this model emerges
Several providers or institutions hold necessary parts of the journey. No single actor can coordinate the whole purchase. Regulation binds particular stages. The firm depends on more than one external control point.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
The exceptions land in the seams, which is where nobody is on duty.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
Distributed decision network · New capability
Allocating accountability
Scenario
What changes
Naming who answers for the outcome when four parties shaped it.
What remains human
Business intent. Consequential exceptions. Accountability for the final result. Resolving conflicts between actors and between rules.
What the firm must add
Accountability does not distribute on its own. It disappears.
Why this model emerges
Several providers or institutions hold necessary parts of the journey. No single actor can coordinate the whole purchase. Regulation binds particular stages. The firm depends on more than one external control point.
What the firm gains and risks
Access to specialist capabilities, but fragmented accountability and more complex dependencies.
If it does not happen
The firm runs the scenario without this capability and discovers what it cost afterwards.
Evidence and status
Scenario
A way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
What supports it
Across the 49 observed decision positions, the firm configures 5, and all 5 concern approval.
The mechanism
Accountability does not distribute on its own. It disappears.
Why it matters to you
This is a capability to build, not a tool to buy.
Denominator and derivation
Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend.
This does not mean that everything outside approval is externally controlled. It identifies who configures each observed capability in the available evidence.
What changes in the firm
Human work moves from managing handoffs to designing and governing the decision system.
- Need
- Define
- Find
- Compare
- Check
- Negotiate
- Approve
- Order
- Pay
-
Less manual process management
Routine preparation, routing, repeated handoffs, checking and reconciliation decline.
-
Human judgment remains
People still set objectives, resolve important trade-offs, approve consequential decisions and handle material exceptions.
-
New capabilities emerge
The firm needs decision architecture, constraint design, agent configuration, exception governance, decision-quality measurement and learning ownership.
An operating model defines how capabilities, accountability, information and execution are organised. When AI changes where these sit and how they connect, the operating model changes even if the organisation chart and final approver remain the same.
The diagnostic
Which decision capabilities must your firm own, which can it configure with a provider, and which can it safely delegate?
The answer is an operating-model decision rather than a procurement one. It settles what the firm builds and what it buys, how much of the buying process depends on a single provider, who may change the rules a decision runs on, and whether the configuration and the record could move to another provider later.
Two of those consequences outlast the contract. A capability the firm stops performing is one it may also stop understanding, and architectural knowledge is harder to recover than a subscription. And the ability to change providers is decided when the capability is sourced, not when the switch is wanted.
Work through one capability at a time Nine decision capabilities, eight questions, a sourcing posture and a governance requirement
The diagnostic
Which decision capabilities should the firm own?
Eight questions about one capability. The answer is a sourcing posture and the trade-offs it creates, not a recommendation the instrument can make for your organisation.
What follows
Sourcing posture
Governance requirement
Why this follows from your answers
Which parts take which posture
What the firm must retain
The main risk
Why this governance level
Safeguards
This was close
A diagnostic, not an answer. It cannot see your organisation, your contracts or what your people can actually run, and it will not pretend to.
The five postures and the patterns that produce them
-
01
Delegate it
Take the provider's standard capability.
Delegate a capability only when every one of these holds: it is administrative, a poor decision costs little, nobody has to explain it, there is no regulatory exposure, no proprietary learning depends on it, and everything can move to another provider. Any regulatory exposure at all rules this out.
It fires when all of these hold
- the capability is administrative
- a poor decision has minor consequences
- nobody has to explain the outcome
- there is no regulatory exposure
- your own data is not what makes it work
- no learning of yours compounds through it
- the data, the logic and the history can all move
-
02
Split it
Assign different parts of the one capability to different arrangements.
Split a capability when its parts pull in different directions: something of yours is inside it that cannot leave, or your advantage depends on data somebody else holds. Splitting means assigning different parts of the one capability to different arrangements.
It fires when any one of these holds
- your own data is what makes it work
- none of it can move to another provider
- your learning compounds through it
- none of it can move to another provider
- it differentiates how you buy
- the data that makes it work is the provider's
-
03
Own it
Build and keep the logic, the data and the history.
Own a capability that creates strategic differentiation AND rests on knowledge or data that is distinctively yours, or is where your learning accumulates. Differentiation on its own is not enough, and distinctive data on its own is not either. A provider may still supply infrastructure underneath; the logic and the learning stay yours.
It fires when any one of these holds
- it differentiates how you buy
- your own data is what makes it work
- it differentiates how you buy
- your learning compounds through it
-
04
Configure it
Use a provider's technology and keep the terms it runs on.
Configure a capability whose technology can be a provider's but whose terms must stay yours: the objectives, the rules, the thresholds, access to the data and the ability to change any of them without raising a support request.
Reached when none of the four above holds. It is the arrangement for a capability that is neither a source of advantage nor a commodity.
The governance requirement, answered separately
-
01
Standard oversight
Normal review. Nothing here needs a special arrangement.
What it asks for
- A named owner for the capability
- Periodic review of whether it is still doing what you asked
-
02
Enhanced oversight
A person can stop it, and the reasons for an outcome can be produced.
What it asks for
- Human exception rights, and someone available to use them
- An account of why an outcome was reached, retrievable after the fact
- A standing review of outcomes rather than of uptime
- A named person who answers when it goes wrong
-
03
Strict controls
Auditable, overridable, and answerable to someone outside the firm.
What it asks for
- Audit rights, exercisable without the provider's cooperation
- An explainable basis for every outcome, retained for as long as the regime requires
- Override, and a tested route for using it
- Named accountability inside the firm, not inside the provider
- A record of what was decided and on what basis, held by you
Any regulatory exposure produces strict controls whatever else is true. A severe or unexplainable consequence raises the requirement. None of the three changes how the capability should be sourced.
How a split is assigned, capability by capability
Requirement framing
- Own it The question the requirement answers What the firm actually needs is not a drafting task.
- Configure it The drafting and the templates A provider can compose the document; the firm sets what a good one contains.
- Own it The library of past requirements It is the record of what the firm has learned to ask for.
Eligibility
- Own it The eligibility criteria Who may be considered is a policy choice, not a feature.
- Configure it The screening and the checks Enhanced oversight A provider runs them; the firm sets what a fail means and keeps the right to intervene.
- Own it The record of who was admitted and why It is what an exclusion has to be defended from if a supplier challenges it.
Supplier intelligence
- Delegate it Market and price benchmarks A pooled view across many buyers is exactly what a provider can do and you cannot.
- Own it Your own supplier history and performance It is yours, it compounds, and it is the half a provider cannot reproduce.
- Configure it The joining of the two How outside benchmarks meet your own history is a judgement the firm should set.
Recommendation or selection
- Own it The criteria and their weights Whoever sets the weights decides which option looks best.
- Configure it The scoring machinery The arithmetic can be a provider's; the inputs to it cannot.
- Configure it The act of selecting Strict controls The threshold between recommending and selecting is usually a setting. Whoever holds that setting needs a written boundary.
Policy application
- Own it The policy itself It is the firm's own statement of what it will and will not do.
- Configure it The rule engine A provider supplies it; the firm must be able to change a rule without asking.
- Own it Exception handling Enhanced oversight Exceptions are where policy is actually decided, so they need named accountability inside the firm.
Official approval
- Own it Who may approve, and up to what Signature authority is the firm's, and nothing else on this list substitutes for it.
- Configure it The routing and the pre-checks A provider can assemble the request; the firm sets what an approver must see.
- Configure it Automatic approval paths Strict controls A rule that approves without a person is a delegation, and it should be an explicit one.
Execution
- Delegate it The transaction rails Moving money and orders is infrastructure, and infrastructure is what providers are for.
- Configure it Limits, holds and intervention thresholds What may be executed without a person is the firm's decision.
- Own it The ability to stop it Strict controls Someone inside the firm must be able to halt execution, and be named as the person who can.
Record management
- Configure it The operational record It can live in a provider's system as long as it can leave it.
- Own it Export rights and format This is the whole of the firm's leverage at renewal.
- Configure it Retention and disclosure Strict controls What must be kept, and shown to whom, is set outside the commercial relationship.
Learning and improvement
- Own it The outcome history It is the only asset here that gets more valuable and cannot be bought.
- Delegate it The analysis tooling Tools for reading a history are replaceable; the history is not.
- Own it What the firm changes as a result Improvement that a provider makes on your behalf is improvement you cannot take with you.
Apply the analysis
Design your AI value stack.
Decide which decision capabilities create value, and which your firm can safely source from providers.
-
01
Separate advantage from infrastructure
Identify which decision capabilities will matter in the new operating model, and which are the same for every firm in your market.
-
02
Decide the sourcing and the governance
Own, configure, delegate or split each capability, and set the oversight the decision actually requires rather than the oversight the contract offers.
-
03
Keep what compounds
Name the provider dependencies you are taking on, and protect the portability, the learning and the architectural knowledge you would need to change your mind.
Common Methodology
Two evidence populations, never crossed
The journey figures come from Fifty-four procurement offerings were examined against the nine stages. The figures below count offerings whose effect at a stage is described in a governed record. They are not a share of the market, an adoption rate or a trend. The decision positions come from a second population: 10 procurement areas examined for who configures, who performs and who makes an outcome official, coded into 49 positions across 8 decision capabilities, with 31 left empty. The two are never added or crossed. The offerings were selected before any area was defined and no key joins one to the other, so crossing them would invent both the join and the axis.
What a coded position is, and how it is checked
Each position names a governed record and quotes it. The build opens that record and checks the quote is present word for word; a quote that has drifted, been paraphrased or been attributed to the wrong record fails the build. The coding is therefore checked at its input rather than reviewed at its output. An empty position means no inspected source describes that capability in that area. It does not mean nobody performs it.
Three readings, kept apart
- Who performs itWho does the work. A firm's own system doing the work says nothing about who set the terms it runs on.
- Who configures itWho sets the objectives, the rules and the thresholds. This is the reading the page leads with, and the one the 5 of 49 figure counts.
- Who makes it officialOne capability of the eight, not a property of all eight. No reading of another position establishes anything about who holds it.
What these figures cannot support
No prevalence, share, adoption rate, ranking, momentum or forecast. Nothing about areas outside the ten or offerings outside the fifty-four. Provider-configured capability appears in all 10 of the ten areas examined, and that is a statement about those ten and no others.
Observations, implications and scenarios
- Visible nowDescribed in a governed record of what providers currently do.
- Analytical implicationA mechanism read from several governed findings rather than stated in any one of them.
- ScenarioA way the operating model could be arranged. The conditions it needs are stated, and so is what happens instead.
Current model and Task automation and Provider-led coordination rest on governed records of what providers currently do. Firm-configured coordination and Distributed decision network are ways the operating model could be arranged; each names the conditions it needs, what happens instead, and what the reader should take from it. A scenario never renders as a present-state finding.
The three named provider paths
- Globality One examined offering takes requester project intent and returns a concise brief, merit-based supplier options and a proposal comparison to the buyer making the award decision. Four stages that were four separate handoffs become one product of one provider's configuration. The requester answers an intake dialogue, and the comparison is produced for the approver rather than assembled by them.
- Oracle One examined offering runs from eligible requisition lines to a published negotiation and an applied award, with the purchasing documents generated by a subsequent job. A published sourcing policy and three jobs in order connect a request from the requisition to the purchasing documents without a person managing any handoff in between.
- Vic.ai One examined offering takes an invoice, a purchase order and a receipt and returns an approved and matched invoice to the customer's payment process. Where the tool is extremely confident across all its predictions, the invoice goes straight through.
How the diagnostic decides
It is an instrument for thinking rather than evidence. 8 questions, evaluated as 4 ordered sourcing rules with no weights and no score, and a governance requirement decided separately from three of the same answers. Sourcing turns on differentiation, distinctive data, learning and portability. Governance turns on regulatory exposure, consequence and explainability. Any regulatory exposure produces strict controls whatever else is true, and none of the three governance inputs changes how a capability should be sourced. Required speed appears in neither. Every combination of the 8 answers is evaluated at build time and checked against the rules it came from.
- Delegate itDelegate a capability only when every one of these holds: it is administrative, a poor decision costs little, nobody has to explain it, there is no regulatory exposure, no proprietary learning depends on it, and everything can move to another provider. Any regulatory exposure at all rules this out.
- Split itSplit a capability when its parts pull in different directions: something of yours is inside it that cannot leave, or your advantage depends on data somebody else holds. Splitting means assigning different parts of the one capability to different arrangements.
- Own itOwn a capability that creates strategic differentiation AND rests on knowledge or data that is distinctively yours, or is where your learning accumulates. Differentiation on its own is not enough, and distinctive data on its own is not either. A provider may still supply infrastructure underneath; the logic and the learning stay yours.
- Configure itConfigure a capability whose technology can be a provider's but whose terms must stay yours: the objectives, the rules, the thresholds, access to the data and the ability to change any of them without raising a support request.
- Standard oversightNormal review. Nothing here needs a special arrangement.
- Enhanced oversightA person can stop it, and the reasons for an outcome can be produced.
- Strict controlsAuditable, overridable, and answerable to someone outside the firm.
A split names which parts of a capability take which posture, for each of the 9 capabilities, rather than returning a general instruction.
Where the operating-model statement comes from
Two propositions underlie it. Value concentrates wherever the scarce constraint sits, so when a technology removes a scarcity the value migrates to whatever is binding next rather than disappearing. And AI is strong inside a workflow step and structurally weak at the seams between steps, which is why coordination becomes the thing worth owning as execution becomes cheap. Both are the frame this page reasons with; neither is the warrant for any count on it.
The worked example's sources
- RS-01Vendor Management Systems That Save Your Business Money. Ramp, retrieved 2026-08-25. A product marketing page, undated, with no version. It describes capability and names no customer using it. Price Intelligence is marked EARLY ACCESS AVAILABLE on the same page, so it is not established as generally available.
- RS-02Price Intelligence on Ramp. Ramp, retrieved 2026-08-25. Undated support article. The publisher states its own accuracy limitation in the fourth quotation above, and that limitation travels with any use of this source. Access is role-gated by default.
- RS-03Get the best price for software with Ramp's Vendor Management and Price Intelligence. Ramp, retrieved 2026-08-25. A dated launch announcement, and the only dated source in this set. It is three years old at retrieval, so it establishes what was launched rather than what the product does now; the two support articles carry the current description.
- RS-04Vendor Sourcing in Ramp Procurement. Ramp, retrieved 2026-08-25. Undated support article for a feature the same article marks Early Access and opt-in. It establishes the documented flow, not that any business runs it. The automatic acceptance of AI-suggested grades applies to the grades, and the same article places the selection of the winner with the user.
- RS-05AI Purchasing Software: End-to-End Approval Management. Ramp, retrieved 2026-08-25. A product marketing page, undated. It is the clearest published statement of the boundary and it is the company's own, which is the reason it is quoted rather than paraphrased.
- LA-SRC-006Virtual Cards on Purchase Orders. Ramp, retrieved 2026-08-22. Undated support article. The issuance follows an approval that already happened; the document establishes no authority to approve the order itself. Automatic issuance is an administrator toggle and can be off.
- LA-SRC-018Buy at the speed of AI. Ramp, retrieved 2026-08-23. A dated vendor blog announcing a launch. The named-customer quote describes routing rather than the agents' preparation work, so it does not evidence the coded operation in a live workflow. No evidence that any agent approves anything.
Every one is the company describing its own product. One company-authored record cannot establish how common an arrangement is, and none of them names a customer running it.