Most procurement teams assume they’re doing fine—until late deliveries, budget deviations, or mismatched approvals start surfacing.
Nearly 80% of companies acknowledge their procurement function doesn’t consistently meet business needs. That shortfall often reveals itself slowly; through unchecked maverick spend, missed supplier obligations, or broken links across the procure to pay cycle.
Running a maturity assessment helps reset the picture. It gives teams a clearer sense of what’s working, what’s drifting, and where foundational changes are needed—not to score performance, but to anchor progress.
Here’s how teams are approaching it:
Having access to spend numbers is different from understanding how they shape action.
We’ve seen teams run detailed spend reports but still struggle to connect them to contract value or PO accuracy. Procurement spend management software often uncovers more data than expected—but maturity shows in how that data is used, not just captured.
In one organization we spoke with, nearly 30% of tail spend came from internal purchases that never passed through procurement. The data existed, but it wasn’t integrated with the broader procure to pay process, so no one acted on it.
Most systems track basic supplier details—onboarding dates, compliance flags, performance logs. What matters more is how often that data drives action.
A team we worked with uncovered that a long-time vendor had missed SLA targets for over a year. Nothing changed, because no review cycle or escalation workflow was in place.
Procurement contract management software was in use—but disconnected from performance triggers.
That assessment helped put a cadence in place—one where supplier data wasn’t just stored, but responded to.
Risk isn’t just about what’s flagged; it’s about what teams do when something’s flagged.
In several assessments, we’ve seen geopolitical or compliance risks clearly marked in dashboards, but not tied to sourcing decisions or alternate supplier plans. The visibility was there, but it lived in isolation.
A mature setup aligns risk data with operational decisions—adjusting timelines, diversifying vendors, or introducing new checkpoints in the procure-to-pay cycle. Without that, risk tracking becomes a static report.
It’s common to see top-tier procurement tech only partially adopted.
In one conversation with a cross-functional team, we found their best strategic sourcing software was only used for high-value projects. Everyday sourcing ran through emails and spreadsheets. When tool usage depends on buyer preference, consistency suffers.
Assessments help surface where platforms are underused; not because they’re unfit, but because the workflows around them never caught up.
Documented workflows often don’t reflect how work actually gets done. That drift can’t be seen until it’s mapped.
During one maturity review, we noticed that PR-to-PO timelines varied widely—even for similar transactions.
Some teams moved in a day. Others took a week. The issue wasn’t capability; it was unclear ownership, inconsistent logic, and missing checks.
Mapping the full procure-to-pay cycle helped bring structure back. It also clarified which gaps were systemic and which were team-specific.
A maturity assessment works best when it stays simple and direct—focused on surfacing what matters.
The goal is not to be perfect, but to be clear. Whether the focus is on spend visibility, supplier performance, risk response, or tool adoption, stepping back to examine how things actually function often leads to sharper decisions.
We have seen that when systems like mjPRO are already in place, identifying improvement areas across the procure-to-pay cycle becomes more natural. This kind of structure shifts the focus from ticking boxes to building real progress.
Maturity is not a fixed point. It is a continuous shift toward stronger, more aligned procurement operations.
mjPRO is a Saas Product from
mjunction services limited
