The gap between Procurement and Finance is costing more than you think

First up, neither team is at fault.

Securing best value for your organisation means implementing a simple, repeatable purchasing process that works for both Procurement and Finance.

The task of negotiating strong contracts and setting approved supplier routes sits with Procurement, while Finance sets budgets, monitors cash flow, and manages payments. The value that the two teams create depends on bridging the gap between those points: the day-to-day buying decisions made by front-line employees.

When purchases happen outside the agreed buying route, Finance has no visibility, and the value that Procurement secured is eroded. Across hundreds or thousands of purchases, off-contract spend adds up. Time is lost resolving the resulting exceptions. Budgets rely on an incomplete picture of spend.

Closing that gap requires the CFO and key stakeholders to own the wider process and make one controlled buying route the standard across every department. That gives Finance a reliable view of spend and helps ensure the value Procurement negotiates is realised in practice.

But what causes the existing process to break down?

Costs to the organisation

The impacts appear in four areas:

1. Late visibility

When purchasing happens outside the agreed route, Finance has no spend visibility until the invoice arrives. At that point, the organisation has committed to the cost, spending decisions have been made without up-to-date information, cash-flow planning is less reliable, and there’s no opportunity to challenge if requested goods or services have been provided and accepted. Legally, payment is due.

2. Lost value

As part of its remit, Procurement negotiates better pricing and preferred supplier arrangements. That value is lost when staff don’t buy from approved suppliers under the agreed terms. Maverick spend costs the organisation twice: once through missed savings and again through the additional manual work off-contract purchasing creates. Spend becomes fragmented, and Procurement loses leverage with suppliers.

3. Avoidable work

Problems created during buying move downstream, where Procurement and Finance must resolve them under greater time pressure. Missing approvals, incorrect coding, supplier queries, and pricing discrepancies all need to be traced and corrected before payment can proceed. This means more manual work, slower processing, and less capacity to improve control and performance.

4. Compliance and supplier risk

Buying outside approved suppliers and agreed terms can bypass due diligence or commit the organisation to terms that have not been properly reviewed. This increases exposure to unsuitable suppliers and weak contractual protection.

Policy and training aren't enough

Organisations already have rules for approved suppliers, purchase orders, and spending authority. But unless stakeholder management, enforcement, and controls are built into the purchasing process, employees will still buy off-contract, enter incorrect PO information, or commit the organisation before approval.

Staff are judged on the immediate demands of their roles. When time is short, they will take the quickest route to get what they need. Policy and training can explain why the process matters, but they can’t make a slower buying route the one employees choose consistently.

Policy sets the rules. Control comes from applying them every time someone buys.

What real control looks like

The agreed buying route should be the easiest to follow.

Employees must be able to find the right supplier, use the agreed price, and provide the required information without piecing the process together themselves. Approval should happen before the order is placed, not after the invoice arrives.

This gives Procurement a direct link between the contracts it negotiates and the purchases people make, while Finance has an earlier, more accurate view of spend.

How this benefits the organisation

• Realise negotiated value

  Purchases follow the agreed pricing and terms.

• Improve budget and forecast accuracy

  Decisions are based on the actual spending position.

• Reduce operating costs

  Less time is lost to avoidable investigation and correction.

• Reduce risk
  Suppliers have been vetted against agreed criteria before spend.

Achieving these outcomes depends on connecting supplier, contract, purchasing, and finance data in one simple buying route that works at the point of purchase.

How we close the gap

Proactis builds Procurement and Finance controls into the purchasing process. Approved suppliers, contract terms, required information, and approvals shape each purchase.

• Make the purchasing process easier
  Marketplace gives employees one place to find and purchase from approved suppliers. No more searching for contracts, waiting for Procurement to confirm details, or sourcing alternatives themselves.

• Control the purchase before the order is placed
  Purchase-to-Pay captures the required details and coding, then sends the purchase through the correct approval route. Finance can see the cost once it’s approved, rather than discovering it when payment is due.

• Stop buying errors from becoming invoice problems
  AP Automation checks invoices against the supplier information and purchase order. The greater the compliance and accuracy of the invoices, the less effort required, while genuine exceptions are identified for resolution.

Our solutions allow CFOs to protect budget and reduce the time lost to avoidable purchasing and invoice problems. We also work alongside existing ERP and finance systems, so organisations can start with the parts of the purchasing process causing the greatest loss of value or visibility, without replacing what already works.

The first step is to identify where the purchasing process stops applying the controls that Procurement, Finance and the wider organisation rely on.