Back to home
Supply Chain & Procurement

How a Procurement Team Uncovered $2.8M in Supplier Risk - in 4 Minutes

Industry
Supply Chain Consulting
Data
11,400 purchase orders
Period
Q1–Q3 2024
Time to first insight
4 minutes

The Situation

A mid-size supply chain consultancy was preparing a quarterly procurement review for a manufacturing client. The client had 11,400 purchase orders across three files - one per quarter - covering raw materials, electronics, chemicals, packaging, and MRO supplies.

Their usual process: export from ERP, clean the data in Excel, build a pivot table, manually create supplier rankings, write a summary. Two analysts. Half a day. Every quarter.

The files had inconsistent column names across quarters - Q1 used “Supplier_Name”, Q2 used “vendor”, Q3 used “SUPPLIER”. No standard schema. Every BI tool they'd tried either failed to load the files or required manual column mapping before it would do anything. They dropped all three files into Xnorly.

What Xnorly Found in 4 Minutes

Xnorly detected the schema across all three files automatically - no mapping, no templates - joined them into a single dataset, and generated the full analysis.

CriticalSupplier Concentration Risk
"Your top 5 suppliers account for 86.7% of total spend. $2,860,000 is at risk from single-source dependency."

The Pareto analysis revealed that NovaTech Components alone represented 30.8% of total procurement spend - $1,018,400 across the period. The top 3 suppliers combined controlled 68% of spend. No alternative sourcing was visible in the data for any of these categories.

Xnorly flagged this as high-priority with a specific dollar figure attached: if NovaTech experienced a supply disruption, $1M+ in procurement would be exposed with no fallback supplier in the dataset.

What they did: Presented as the lead finding in the client review. The client had not quantified the concentration risk in dollar terms before - they knew they were reliant on NovaTech but had never seen it expressed as $1M exposure. The review led to a supplier diversification project worth $180K in consulting fees.
HighLead Time Variance by Supplier
"Supplier A (NovaTech) is delivering an average of 6.2 days late. This has worsened by 2.1 days quarter-over-quarter."

Xnorly cross-referenced order dates against delivery dates across all three quarters and detected a statistically significant deterioration in NovaTech's delivery performance - coinciding with a 22% increase in order volume in Q3.

The system also flagged that Starline Metals Ltd, the second-largest supplier, had perfect on-time delivery across all 847 orders - making it a candidate for volume reallocation.

What they did: Used the lead time data to renegotiate NovaTech's SLA terms and shift 15% of volume to Starline - reducing average lead time variance from 6.2 days to 2.4 days within one quarter.
StrategicABC/XYZ Classification
"Class A items (top 20% by value) account for 78% of spend but only 31% of order frequency - these are your strategic procurement targets."

Xnorly automatically classified all SKUs by revenue contribution (ABC) and demand variability (XYZ). The analysis identified 43 Class AX items - high value, stable demand - that were being ordered ad hoc rather than on scheduled contracts, creating unnecessary price volatility.

It also identified 218 Class CZ items - low value, unpredictable demand - consuming 14% of the procurement team's processing time for less than 2% of spend value.

What they did: Recommended contract-based procurement for the 43 AX items (estimated 8–12% cost reduction) and vendor-managed inventory for the CZ tail (estimated 60% reduction in processing overhead for that category).
InformationalDemand Forecast Anomaly
"Q3 Electronics spend increased 34% with no corresponding change in production output data. Possible unplanned purchasing or inventory build."

Xnorly detected a significant spend spike in Electronics that didn't correlate with the demand patterns from Q1 and Q2. Without production output data to confirm, it flagged this as a potential unplanned purchase or buffer stock build that warranted investigation.

What they did: Investigated and found the client's procurement team had made an unplanned bulk purchase of electronic components ahead of an anticipated price increase. The purchase was legitimate but undocumented - the finding prompted the client to implement a purchase approval threshold policy for orders above $50K.

Results Summary

Metric
Before Xnorly
With Xnorly
Time to complete quarterly procurement review
4–5 hours (2 analysts)
4 minutes
Supplier concentration risk identified
Not quantified
$2.86M quantified
Lead time deterioration detected
Noticed but not tracked
6.2 days, deteriorating 2.1 days QoQ
ABC/XYZ classification
Manual, done annually
Automatic, per analysis
Actionable findings per review
2–3
8
“We dropped three messy files with different column headers from three different quarters. Xnorly joined them automatically and gave us the supplier concentration risk in dollar terms within minutes. That single finding opened a $180K consulting engagement. We used to spend half a day on this review. Now it takes one coffee.”

- Anonymous, Supply Chain Analyst, Boutique Procurement Consultancy

The Data

  • Files3 quarterly procurement exports (CSV)
  • Rows11,400 purchase orders
  • Columns detected14 per file (inconsistent naming - auto-resolved)
  • Suppliers analyzed47
  • CategoriesRaw materials, Electronics, Chemicals, Packaging, MRO
  • PeriodQ1–Q3 2024
  • Setup requiredNone. Files dropped in, analysis generated.

Want to run this analysis on your procurement data?

Drop your files at app.xnorly.com - no account setup, no column mapping, no waiting.

Try Xnorly free

This case study uses anonymised data from a real analysis run through Xnorly. Company and supplier names have been changed. All financial figures reflect the actual output of the analysis.