Procurement insight. Practical action.

Find the value in your procurement data.

Protect negotiated savings, improve cash timing and reduce rework by bringing actionable opportunities back to the people who created the purchase orders.

Start with a scoped assessment. Establish what your data can reveal, the potential benefit and which signals to implement first.

Where to start

How it works

Brief 3:40 Detailed 15:18

Andrey MatveevFounder & Delivery Lead, Datanovel

After the PO. While there is time to act.

The order is created.
The opportunity remains.

01
Detect high-confidence signals
Prediction models trained on your data and running on your compute intercept newly created POs. They use relevant prices, terms and other evidence to identify signals with the confidence, value and time to act.
02
Automation puts the correction in the right inbox
Email the PO creator the evidence, potential impact and proposed correction. Agreed rules can copy their line manager for high-confidence, material opportunities.
03
Verify the financial benefit
Follow adjustments through your order, invoice and payment records to verify the financial benefit achieved. Use the results to refine each signal.

The assessment establishes which signals your data and systems can support.
Implementation follows, one signal at a time.

01 / Where to start

Establish the
opportunity.

An assessment scoped around your procurement priorities. You receive a prioritised view of the signals your data can support, the potential benefits and the practical requirements for implementation.

Discuss an assessment

A clear basis for the next decisionWhat the assessment puts in your hands.

The assessment turns a broad possibility into a practical implementation priority. Its agreed scope produces three connected outputs:

Data readiness. The signals your data can support, important gaps and the practical window for action.
Opportunity fit. Candidate signals linked to your procurement priorities, with supporting examples where the evidence allows.
Potential business value. Benefit estimates, assumptions and implementation requirements that establish which signal should come first.

The next step is implementation of the selected signals, one by one, with scope agreed for each.

Understand the data you haveQuality, availability and the realities of your process.

We look at the procurement data your organisation already holds and how your teams actually use it. Can orders, suppliers and materials be connected reliably? Are descriptions and commercial terms usable? How soon is a newly created PO available for checking, and what can still be corrected?

The assessment records which signals can be detected reliably, which data gaps matter and where there is a practical window for action. Perfect data is not a prerequisite for every useful improvement.

Find the signals that fitA worthwhile starting point in your own circumstances.

We connect your priorities in direct and indirect procurement to individual signals: a price that no longer reflects an agreed rate, overlapping material demand, shortened payment terms or an incomplete service record.

A signal is useful only when the supporting evidence is credible, the context is relevant and your teams can still do something with it. The assessment identifies suitable signals and supporting examples from the agreed data scope, with the conditions each would need to work.

Evaluate the benefit worth pursuingThe opportunity, its assumptions and what to investigate next.

We estimate the potential value and the evidence needed to support it. Purchase savings, cash timing, financing benefits and time freed up for your teams are different outcomes and should be understood separately.

You receive a prioritised opportunity assessment: candidate signals, supporting evidence, benefit assumptions, relevant data gaps and practical implementation requirements. This establishes what merits implementation, what needs better evidence and what is not currently worth pursuing.

Implementation is then agreed signal by signal, on your platform and with your team involved.

02 / Value areas

Where value can
slip away.

Across direct and indirect procurement, the assessment connects these business outcomes to specific signals your data can support.

01Lost in transactionSavings leakage: where negotiated value slips away.

Accepting a higher price, buying just below a discount threshold, using a non-preferred supplier or choosing a premium specification can dilute negotiated value.

Where the data supports it, Datanovel looks for price anomalies, threshold leakage, preferred-route bypass and over-specification. Your teams see the signal and supporting evidence while the decision may still be adjustable.

Useful context: the expected price, contracted option, preferred supplier, discount threshold or similar demand elsewhere, with an estimate of the commercial impact.

See the negotiated-price example

02Cash & working capitalDecisions that may bring cash exposure forward.

Duplicated or overlapping demand, unusually large quantities and payment terms changed away from the vendor-master default can bring cash exposure forward.

When historical quantities, related purchases and supplier terms provide reliable evidence, the context can help your teams reconsider the order or its timing.

Useful context: recent similar orders, the normal quantity range, expected payment terms and the possible cash-timing impact. A financing benefit is measured separately from the amount of cash affected.

See the overlapping-demand example
See the payment-terms example

03The long and winding POWorkload avoidance: addressing incomplete records before they create rework.

Unclear descriptions, weak service scope, missing material numbers or references, and commodity codes that do not match the description can leave downstream teams chasing information.

The aim is to show useful context while the buying record can still be improved: a likely classification issue, material-code mismatch, missing reference, unclear scope or possible invoice-matching risk.

Potential benefit: fewer clarification loops and blocked invoices, better touchless processing and shorter cycle times. The assessment identifies where these effects could be measured.

See the service-reference example
See the material-code example

04ESG & preferred alternativesApproved options that may be overlooked.

An approved greener alternative, preferred supplier or category-guided option may already exist when a team chooses a standard item or buying route.

The aim is to make that option visible while the decision may still be adjusted, with sustainability and business considerations together.

Useful context: the approved alternative, category guidance, possible ESG impact and any commercial trade-off. Recommendations depend on the approved options and evidence available in your organisation.

See the packaging alternative
See the refurbished-device example

Other decisions worth exploringOrder economics, demand consolidation, policy alignment and service spend clarity.

Order economicsCould a quantity adjustment improve the buying conditions?

Known price breaks, minimum order quantities, pack sizes, order multiples and supplier discounts can affect unit economics. Where these conditions are available, the context shows the buying rule and estimated impact so the team can consider an adjustment without creating unnecessary stock.

Demand consolidationCould related requirements be considered together?

Requirements raised separately across teams, sites, cost centres or short time windows can fragment buying power. The layer looks for related materials, similar items, suppliers, locations and close order timing where the data supports a credible consolidation signal.

Recent similar orders, grouping opportunities, volume thresholds and preferred routes give teams context to decide whether requirements should remain separate or be consolidated.

Policy alignmentIs the relevant procurement guidance visible?

A non-preferred supplier, missing contract reference, unusual tax treatment or fragmented demand can indicate a decision worth reviewing. Showing the relevant supplier, contract, tax, category or related-demand context helps the team assess its current route. An unusual choice may still have a valid business reason.

Service spend clarityDoes the record explain what service is being bought?

Generic descriptions, missing statements of work or contract references, unclear service periods, weak pricing bases and broad commodity coding can make services difficult to classify and compare.

The context prompts useful improvements while the record is still adjustable, helping make spend more suitable for benchmarking, governance and future savings programmes.

03 / Practical examples

With a little help
from your data.

The PO is already in the system. A specific email brings the signal and supporting evidence to its creator while the order can still be adjusted.

What could your teams change
if they saw the context sooner?

01 / 13Overlapping demand

Illustrative scenarios · direct and indirect procurement.
Figures show potential value, not client results.

MailIllustrative email

Possible overlapping demand for Site A

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Sarah Bennett

You recently ordered 63 pallets of PIR insulation boards. John Miles raised a similar order for the same site two days earlier.

Your order · 903300263 palletsDelivery 17 June

Recent order · 903200364 palletsDelivery 18 June

You may want to check with John whether both call-offs are still needed.

See the comparison and potential value

Both orders are for 120mm PIR insulation boards, 2400 × 1200mm, material code INS-PIR-120-2400, at Site A. The unit price is £58 per board.

Illustrative order comparison
Detail	Your order	Recent order
Order	9033002	9032003
Requester	Sarah Bennett	John Miles
Quantity	1,260 boards	1,280 boards
Order value	£73,080	£74,240
Requested delivery	17 June 2026	18 June 2026

Previous bulk call-offs for this material at Site A were usually 45–60 days apart. These were raised two days apart, with delivery dates only one day apart.

£73,080Potential avoidable or deferrable cash commitment

Indicative financing benefit: £601 if the order is deferred by 60 days, using a 5% annual cost of capital. This is distinct from the value of the order. Whether cancellation or deferral is appropriate depends on the actual demand.

An example of useful context, with the decision left to the team.

Cash & working capitalDirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

A newer price may apply to PO 9033408

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Michael Turner · PO creatorCc: Ruth Clarke · Line manager

Your new order for 240,000 kg of polymer compound PC-410 still uses £2.65/kg. The supplier purchasing condition valid from 1 June records £240 per 100 kg—equivalent to £2.40/kg for the same material and plant.

Your PO · previous rate£636,000240,000 kg × £2.65/kg

At the revised rate£576,000240,000 kg × £2.40/kg

The difference is £60,000. Please check whether the revised rate applies and correct the PO before supplier acknowledgement if appropriate.

See the price comparison and potential value

The order was raised on 3 June 2026 for June production at Plant B. The comparison matches the material, supplier, purchasing organisation and plant, and checks that the revised condition is valid and has not been deleted.

Illustrative comparison · amounts exclude tax
Detail	New PO	Current condition
Recorded price	£2.65 per kg	£240 per 100 kg
Comparable unit price	£2.65/kg	£2.40/kg
Quantity evaluated	240,000 kg	240,000 kg
Purchase value	£636,000	£576,000
Relevant date	Created 3 June 2026	Valid from 1 June 2026

£60,000Potential reduction in this order's purchase value

The calculation is 240,000 kg × (£2.65 − £2.40). Normalising the recorded price unit makes the comparison meaningful; comparing £2.65 directly with £240 would not.

The creator checks whether a surcharge, delivery arrangement, specification change or agreed exception explains the difference. This scenario assumes the supplier has not yet acknowledged the order and the applicable price can still be corrected. The lower recorded condition alone does not prove the PO is wrong.

Selective manager visibility: this illustration assumes the matched evidence and £60,000 potential leakage meet the organisation's agreed confidence and materiality thresholds for copying the creator's line manager.

The line manager is included under agreed confidence and value thresholds.

Savings leakageDirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

Payment terms worth checking on PO 9033516

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Priya Shah · PO creator

Your £240,000 PO for annual IT support uses Net 15 payment terms. The supplier-master baseline for this company code is Net 60, placing payment 45 days later on the same invoice basis.

Your PO · Net 1515 daysFrom invoice date

Supplier baseline · Net 6060 daysFrom invoice date

Please check whether the shorter term was agreed for this renewal. If it was not, correct the PO while the terms can still be amended.

See the timing comparison and potential value

The comparison uses the supplier master for the same supplier and company code. Both terms are simple net terms measured from the same invoice date.

Illustrative comparison · one invoice, excluding tax
Detail	New PO	Supplier baseline
Service value	£240,000	£240,000
Payment terms	Net 15	Net 60
Invoice basis	Invoice date	Invoice date
Payment timing	45 days earlier	Baseline timing

£1,479Indicative financing benefit from retaining the 60-day term

The calculation is £240,000 × 5% annual financing rate × 45 / 365, rounded. It assumes one invoice, no instalments, no early-payment discount and no advance-payment or end-of-month rule. Actual benefit depends on invoice and payment behaviour.

The £240,000 service price is unchanged. It is the amount whose payment timing is affected, not a purchase saving. The creator checks the renewal agreement: the supplier-master default could be outdated or a valid exception could apply. Any correction must reflect the agreed commercial terms.

A payment-timing opportunity, with the purchase price unchanged.

Cash & working capitalIndirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

Confirm the service period and reference on PO 9033614

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Amelia Grant · PO creator

Your £48,000 PO says “IT services”, with no service period or agreement reference in the fields used for invoice review. Approved statement of work MS-042, linked to the originating request, describes application support from 1 October to 31 December at £16,000 per month.

Current PO descriptionIT services£48,000 · period and reference missing

Context on the approved request3 monthsApplication support · £16,000/month

Please confirm that MS-042 covers this order, then add its reference, service period and billing basis while the PO is still adjustable.

See the missing context and practical benefit

This illustration assumes the same supplier and originating request REQ-2184 connect the approved statement of work to the PO. No service receipt or invoice has been recorded, and the relevant PO fields can still be amended.

Illustrative record check · contract terms require confirmation
Detail	Created PO	Approved request and SOW
Nature of service	IT services	Managed application support
Reference	Not linked on the PO	MS-042
Service period	Not recorded	1 October–31 December
Billing basis	£48,000 total	3 months × £16,000

Why this matters: the service owner and invoice-review team need the agreement, period and billing basis to understand what each monthly invoice relates to. Recording that context can reduce the need to ask the creator to reconstruct it later. The £48,000 is the order value, not a saving.

Before sending: check whether linked attachments already provide everything the downstream process needs. A short description alone is not enough to justify a message. Here the issue is missing operational references; the accessible SOW may already provide sufficient evidence to classify the service.

The creator confirms that the SOW covers this engagement, rather than a separate project or variation. A useful correction might read: “Managed application support, 1 Oct–31 Dec, SOW MS-042, £16,000 per month.”

What to measure: whether the context is added before the first receipt or invoice, followed by relevant clarification requests and invoice exceptions against a comparable baseline. A corrected record alone does not prove a blocked invoice was avoided.

Illustrative scenario · clearer service context before invoice review.

Workload avoidanceIndirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

The description and material code differ on PO 9033628

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: James Wilson · PO creator

Your order describes 120 of the 20-inch filter element PX205, matching the supplier quotation. Its material code FILT-10-5 instead identifies the 10-inch element PX105. The active material master lists PX205 under FILT-20-5.

Item behind the selected code10-inchPX105 · FILT-10-5

Quoted and described item20-inchPX205 · FILT-20-5

Please confirm the quoted item is required and align the material reference before release, so the supplier and receiving team work from the same item.

See the item match and potential rework

The PO exists and is awaiting release. Quotation Q-742 and the originating request both identify PX205. This illustration assumes the manufacturer's part reference, filtration specification, connection type and unit of measure match the proposed material record. All product and material identifiers are hypothetical.

Illustrative material check · 120 individual elements
Detail	Selected material record	Quote and matching record
Material code	FILT-10-5	FILT-20-5
Manufacturer part	PX105	PX205
Recorded length	10 inches	20 inches
PO text	Describes PX205 instead	Agrees with PX205

The quotation is for 120 elements at £28 each, totalling £3,360 before tax. The intended quantity and quoted price remain unchanged in this scenario. The opportunity is to remove conflicting item references, not claim the order value as a saving.

Why this matters: a supplier following the free-text description and a receiving team using the material code could be working from different item identities. Alignment can prevent clarification, receipt corrections and later invoice queries.

The creator checks for a superseded quote, an intentional substitution or an incorrect master-data description. A dimensional difference alone is not a recommendation to substitute a product. Any correction follows the client's normal approval process.

What to measure: whether the references align before release, and the subsequent incidence and handling time of item-reference queries and receipt corrections. No avoided-work figure is assumed in this illustration.

Illustrative scenario · one consistent item reference for ordering and receipt.

Workload avoidanceDirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

An approved carton alternative is available for PO 9033641

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Tom Evans · PO creator

Your order is for 10,000 shipping cartons at £0.78 each. The approved alternative meets the same dimensions and tested packing requirements, with 80% recovered fibre rather than 50%. It costs £0.80 each, adding £200 to this order.

Current carton50%Recovered fibre · £7,800

Approved alternative80%Recovered fibre · £8,000

The latest availability record supports your delivery date. Please confirm stock and approval for the £200 premium, then consider amending the PO before fulfilment begins.

See the qualification, material benefit and cost

This illustration assumes packaging engineering has qualified both item codes for the same product, packing line and shipping conditions. The approved substitution mapping covers dimensions, compression and stacking performance, moisture exposure, printing and any applicable product-contact requirements.

Illustrative comparison · prices exclude tax
Detail	Current carton	Approved alternative
Order quantity	10,000	10,000
Fibre mass per carton	0.50 kg	0.50 kg
Declared recovered fibre	50%	80%
Recovered fibre in order	2,500 kg	4,000 kg
Unit price	£0.78	£0.80
Order price	£7,800	£8,000

1.5 tonnesAdditional recovered fibre in the order, for a £200 premium

The material calculation is 10,000 × 0.50 kg × (80% − 50%) = 1,500 kg. Supplier declarations must use the same fibre-mass basis and cover the actual items supplied. The price difference is 10,000 × (£0.80 − £0.78) = £200.

Before changing the PO: confirm the qualified specification, available quantity, delivery date, spending approval and any amendment charges. The example assumes the existing order can be changed without a fee and the alternative meets the required delivery date.

What to measure: the alternative actually received, its supported material-content figure, incremental purchase cost and any effect on damage or packing performance. Recovered-fibre content does not by itself establish a carbon reduction or an overall environmental advantage.

For background on material-content criteria, see EPA guidance on recovered-fibre paper and packaging. The product approvals, prices and quantities above are illustrative.

Illustrative scenario · a specific material-content improvement with its cost visible.

ESG & preferred alternativesDirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

An approved refurbished option could meet PO 9033657

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Helen Ward · PO creator

Your order is for 20 new laptops at £900 each. IT's approved alternatives list includes a refurbished configuration for this user group at £725, with the required support package. The quoted batch covers all 20 devices and your required delivery date.

20 new devices£18,000£900 per device

20 approved refurbished devices£14,500£725 per device

Please confirm that the approved batch remains available and meets the deployment plan. If it does, consider switching the order before fulfilment begins.

See the approval criteria and potential benefit

This illustration concerns a standard office-user deployment. IT has approved the particular refurbished configuration and supplier route for that workload. Matching memory and storage alone is insufficient: suitability also covers processor performance, operating-system support, security, device management and required accessories.

Illustrative comparison · equivalent included services, excluding tax
Detail	New devices	Approved refurbished batch
Quantity	20	20
Workload and configuration	Approved for the user group	Approved for the same user group
Required support	Three years	Three years, with accepted warranty and replacement service
Unit price	£900	£725
Purchase cost	£18,000	£14,500

£3,500Potential purchase-cost reduction, with 20 devices returned to use

The price comparison is 20 × (£900 − £725) = £3,500. It assumes the same required deployment services, accessories and delivery costs are included, and that amending the existing PO attracts no charge.

Before changing the PO: confirm the actual batch, condition grade, battery acceptance standard, refurbishment and data-erasure evidence, warranty and replacement terms, remaining supported service life and delivery date. Keep the original route if the approved alternative no longer meets the requirement or the order cannot be amended.

What to measure: actual purchase cost and previously used devices accepted into service, supported by receipt and asset records. Reuse does not automatically establish a particular carbon saving or an amount of e-waste avoided; broader lifecycle effects need separate evidence.

This is an established procurement option: Defra describes using refurbished and remanufactured devices in its technology procurement. The figures above are hypothetical and are not Defra results.

Illustrative scenario · reuse within IT-approved performance and support requirements.

ESG & preferred alternativesIndirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

A quantity adjustment could lower the total on PO 9033701

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Daniel Reed · PO creator

Your order for 900 housing components at £12 each totals £10,800. The agreed price for an order of 1,000 or more is £10.50 per component. An order of 1,000 would cost £10,500: 100 more components for £300 less overall.

Your PO · 900 components£10,800900 × £12.00

At the agreed 1,000-unit tier£10,5001,000 × £10.50

Please check whether the extra 100 components fit confirmed production demand and available storage. If they do, confirm the tier with the supplier and consider amending the PO while its quantity remains adjustable.

See the price break and conditions to check

Illustrative quantity price break · amounts exclude tax
Detail	Created PO	Possible amendment
Quantity	900 components	1,000 components
Applicable unit price	£12.00	£10.50
Purchase value	£10,800	£10,500
Additional quantity	—	100 components requiring confirmed demand

£300Potential reduction in total purchase value before additional costs

The created PO is for housing component HC-210 and is awaiting supplier acknowledgement. The applicable supplier schedule uses an all-units price break: £12 per component below 1,000 units and £10.50 per component from 1,000 units. This illustration assumes the schedule applies to this supplier, plant, specification and delivery period.

The purchase-value difference is £10,800 − £10,500 = £300. The lower total requires a genuine need for the additional 100 components. Buying stock that may expire, become obsolete or remain unused can outweigh that difference.

The creator checks planned consumption, storage, delivery arrangements and any additional handling or financing costs. A minimum order rule, a price applying only to units above the threshold, or a separate delivery charge would change the calculation.

Any benefit is verified against the applicable terms, amended order and final invoice, with relevant additional costs included. These are illustrative figures and hypothetical identifiers.

More units can make commercial sense only when the extra quantity is useful.

Savings leakageDirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

Related site orders may qualify for the same volume price

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Laura Ellis · PO creator

Your PO for 400 valve assemblies at Site A and Martin Cole’s PO for 600 at Site B both use £22 each. The supplier’s agreed terms allow eligible demand across these sites to count towards the 1,000-unit price of £20. The combined purchase-value difference is £2,000.

Two created POs · current price£22,000400 + 600 assemblies at £22

Eligible combined-demand price£20,0001,000 assemblies at £20

Please coordinate with Martin to confirm both requirements, delivery dates and eligibility for combined pricing. If the supplier confirms the £20 rate, update the two adjustable POs through the normal approval process.

See the linked requirements and potential value

Illustrative site-demand check · amounts exclude tax
Detail	Current pricing	Eligible combined pricing
Site A · 400 assemblies	£8,800	£8,000
Site B · 600 assemblies	£13,200	£12,000
Total quantity	1,000 assemblies	1,000 assemblies
Combined purchase value	£22,000	£20,000

£2,000Potential purchase-value reduction before additional costs

PO 9033712 for Site A contains 400 of valve assembly VA-440; PO 9033713 for Site B contains 600 of the same assembly. Both POs have been created, neither has been fulfilled, and their prices can still be amended. The agreed supplier schedule permits these sites’ requirements within the same purchasing window to qualify together.

The possible purchase-value reduction is 1,000 × (£22 − £20) = £2,000. The quantity remains 1,000 assemblies. Aggregating demand for pricing does not necessarily require one delivery or moving stock between sites.

The creators confirm that both orders remain necessary and that the material, specification, currency and commercial conditions match. The supplier must accept the combined pricing basis and required dates. Any additional freight, administration or transfer costs are included when evaluating the benefit.

If the two sites buy through different legal entities or the supplier applies thresholds separately, the proposed price may not be available. The email provides a coordination opportunity for the creators to validate. All names, identifiers and figures are illustrative.

Combined pricing requires supplier agreement and workable delivery arrangements.

Savings leakageDirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

Check the scanner specification on PO 9033724

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Olivia Brooks · PO creator

Your order selects 100 long-range barcode scanners at £420 each. The approved equipment schedule for these packing stations specifies the standard-range model at £290. If the operating requirement is unchanged, that approved model would reduce this order’s purchase value by £13,000.

Your PO · long-range model£42,000100 scanners × £420

Approved packing-station model£29,000100 scanners × £290

Please confirm the required scanning distance and packing-station conditions with the operational owner. If the standard model remains suitable and available, consider amending the PO before supplier fulfilment begins.

See the approved specification and commercial difference

Illustrative specification check · quantities unchanged, excluding tax
Detail	Created PO	Approved schedule
Model	Long-range scanner	Standard-range scanner
Quantity	100	100
Unit purchase price	£420	£290
Purchase value	£42,000	£29,000
Required check	Is the premium capability needed?	Does this model still meet the operating requirement?

£13,000Potential purchase-value reduction if the approved model remains suitable

The created PO is for packing-station scanners and remains adjustable before fulfilment. Its originating request identifies the stations covered by approved equipment schedule EQ-117. That schedule lists the standard-range scanner for this use; the PO selects the more expensive long-range version.

The purchase-value difference is 100 × (£420 − £290) = £13,000. The two models provide different capabilities. The decision is whether the premium capability is required for this application, with the operational owner confirming suitability.

The review checks barcode types, scanning distance, ambient conditions, integration, durability, accessories, warranty and required delivery. A changed layout or a new operational requirement may justify the long-range model. Any implementation, training or accessory costs are included in the commercial evaluation.

The creator confirms the appropriate specification and follows normal approval controls for any amendment. Potential benefit becomes a verified purchase saving only after suitability and the applicable price are established and the final purchase evidence supports it. This is an illustrative scenario.

The operational requirement determines the suitable specification.

Savings leakageIndirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

Add the planned hire period to PO 9033739

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Nathan Price · PO creator

Your compressor-hire PO records £900 per week without an end date. The approved maintenance plan linked to the request requires six weeks of hire. Please confirm that period and record who will arrange off-hire, while the PO can still be amended.

Created hire PO£900/weekEnd date and off-hire owner missing

Approved maintenance plan6 weeks£5,400 intended rental scope

Please add the agreed start and end dates, hire-period reference and named owner for arranging return. Confirm the supplier’s off-hire notice and collection terms so the plan can be followed in practice.

See the hire scope and practical benefit

Illustrative hire-record check · rental charges exclude tax and ancillary costs
Detail	Created PO	Context to confirm and record
Rental rate	£900 per week	£900 per week
Hire period	End date missing	Six weeks in MP-061
Intended rental scope	Period not defined	£5,400 for six weeks
Off-hire responsibility	Not recorded	Named owner and supplier notice requirements

The created PO is awaiting supplier acknowledgement and remains amendable. Maintenance plan MP-061, linked to the originating request, specifies a six-week compressor requirement. The PO records the weekly rental rate but omits the end date and responsibility for ending the hire.

Six weeks × £900 gives £5,400 of intended rental charges before tax, delivery, collection and any separately agreed items. This amount describes the planned hire scope. No financial saving or avoided additional hire is assumed.

A recorded end date alone may not stop rental charges. The creator checks the supplier’s notice period, whether billing ends on notice or collection, minimum hire rules, and who is responsible for booking off-hire. The maintenance owner confirms whether the equipment is likely to be needed beyond the planned period.

Clear dates and ownership give the maintenance team a practical trigger to return the equipment or approve an extension. Subsequent rental dates and charges can be reviewed against the agreed scope; evidence of the actual outcome is needed before assigning a financial benefit. References and figures are hypothetical.

Clear hire dates and return ownership support control of ongoing charges.

Workload avoidanceIndirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

Align the billing basis on PO 9033740 with the approved SOW

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Sophie Morgan · PO creator

Your £40,000 project PO is recorded as 40 days at £1,000. The approved statement of work linked to the request specifies a fixed fee of £40,000 against two deliverables. The total matches, but the recorded billing basis differs.

Created PO · day-rate basis40 days40 × £1,000 = £40,000

Approved SOW · fixed fee2 deliverables£40,000 subject to agreed acceptance

Please confirm the fixed-fee terms and align the PO’s billing basis, statement-of-work reference and deliverable acceptance requirements before work or invoicing begins.

See the commercial basis and invoice-review context

Illustrative billing-basis check · the agreed fee remains £40,000
Detail	Created PO	Approved SOW
Commercial basis	40 days at £1,000	Fixed fee against two deliverables
Total fee	£40,000	£40,000
Receipt and acceptance	Day-rate description	Defined deliverable acceptance requirements
Agreement reference	Not linked in receipt fields	SOW-084

The created PO remains amendable and no service receipt or invoice has been posted. Approved statement of work SOW-084 is linked to the same supplier and project request. It provides for a fixed £40,000 fee against two defined deliverables and their acceptance requirements.

The PO instead records 40 days at £1,000 per day. Although 40 × £1,000 equals £40,000, a day-rate description can lead the service owner and invoice team to check time worked rather than the agreed deliverables and acceptance conditions.

The creator confirms that SOW-084 is the current agreement and checks for approved variations. The correction uses the fields, service lines and references required by the client’s process to represent the fixed-fee arrangement. Payment allocations and milestone dates follow the actual agreement; no equal split is assumed.

The practical benefit is a clearer basis for service receipt and invoice review. The £40,000 is the agreed project fee, and the illustration makes no purchase-saving claim. Whether clarification and invoice exceptions reduce must be measured after implementation. Identifiers and names are hypothetical.

An unchanged total can still conceal an inconsistent billing basis.

Workload avoidanceIndirect procurement

MailIllustrative email

Link the asset schedule to inspection PO 9033752

Procurement Context AssistantProcurement signals · automated messageTo: Robert Hayes · PO creator

Your PO describes “annual equipment inspection”, but the fields used for service receipt do not identify the assets or sites. The approved schedule linked to the request covers 20 assets across two sites. That context will help the service owner confirm what has been inspected.

Created PO · receipt contextAnnual inspectionAsset and location references missing

Approved inspection schedule20 assetsIdentified assets across two sites

Please confirm the schedule covers this engagement and link its reference, asset list and site scope in the fields used for service receipt, while the PO remains adjustable.

See the inspection scope and completion evidence

Illustrative inspection-record check · the agreed scope is unchanged
Detail	Created PO receipt fields	Approved schedule
Service description	Annual equipment inspection	Inspection of identified assets
Asset scope	Not identified	20 assets
Locations	Not referenced	Site A and Site B
Operational reference	Missing	AS-220 and its current asset list

The created PO is awaiting fulfilment and remains amendable. Schedule AS-220, linked to the originating request, identifies 20 assets across Site A and Site B. The record used by the service-receipt team contains the generic inspection description but no accessible asset-schedule or location reference.

The correction connects the order to the agreed assets, locations and inspection scope so the service owner can check completion and any outstanding items. The creator confirms that AS-220 is current and that additions, removals or approved scope changes have been reflected.

Where the downstream process already exposes the complete approved schedule, a separate message may be unnecessary. In this illustration, the schedule exists but its reference is missing from the operational record that the receipt team actually uses.

No saving or avoided incident is assigned to the 20 assets. Useful outcomes to observe are whether the reference is added before inspection, whether completion evidence can be reconciled to scope, and whether relevant clarification requests reduce. All references and names are illustrative.

The service owner needs a clear link between inspection scope and completion.

Workload avoidanceIndirect procurement

04 / How it works

Signals become context.
Actions become insight.

Datanovel checks POs after creation and follows up with the creator by email, showing the evidence and a possible correction while the order or record can still be adjusted.

01
Detect
Check already-created POs for a useful signal.
02
Check
Assess confidence, materiality and time to act.
03
Share
Email the creator the signal, evidence and proposed correction.
04
Observe
Follow the correction and verify its financial or operational benefit.
05
Learn
Use verified outcomes to refine each signal.

Useful enough to show.
Early enough to help.

The first messages should earn trust by being selective, specific and clearly useful.

A few good signalsRelevant, timely context that deserves your teams’ attention.

Not every detected signal should become a message. Before context is sent, it is checked for relevance, confidence, materiality, timing and practical usefulness. Guidance also needs to remain current as supplier, market and operational conditions change.

A targeted email returns the already-created PO to its creator's attention, with the supporting evidence, potential impact and a specific point to check. There may still be time to correct a price, adjust terms, improve a record, cancel overlapping demand or select an approved alternative.

For high-confidence cases with very material potential leakage, agreed routing rules can copy the creator's line manager. The evidence and possible correction are visible to both, so a significant opportunity can receive appropriate follow-up.

The team can act on the context or continue where the current route is still right for the business. An unusual order may have a valid explanation.

What happens after the message?Behavioural memory and organisational learning

The layer records what happens next inside your own environment: a supplier change, an adjustment to timing, a better description, a preferred alternative, cancelled duplicate demand or a decision that continues unchanged.

If teams frequently act after a particular signal, it may be useful. If they usually continue unchanged, the context may be weak, incomplete or late—or the current route may be valid for reasons the data does not show.

Financial benefit is checked against the agreed baseline using the relevant order, invoice and payment evidence. A PO amendment records a changed commitment; realised purchase savings need evidence of the cost actually incurred. Cash timing, financing benefit and operational outcomes are tracked separately, with overlapping signals counted only once.

Over time, these patterns help refine which context to show and reveal matters worth investigating across sites, suppliers, categories and policy adoption. The purpose is organisational learning, not individual performance management. A subsequent change alone does not establish why it happened.

The immediate value comes from better decisions at the point of action. The strategic value comes from learning which signals your teams respond to, and what those patterns reveal about suppliers, markets and policy adoption.

How does it fit the way we work?Your environment and existing channels

Each selected signal is implemented on your approved data platform with your team involved. The capability follows up by email, with other existing channels such as Teams where appropriate. Procurement data does not need to move into a Datanovel-owned system, and your teams are not asked to learn another procurement application.

The design starts with your actual systems, data and process. Integration, order-data availability, message routing and the practical window for corrections are assessed in that environment. Datanovel provides the blueprints and delivery support for a capability your organisation can own and maintain.

Datanovel brings relevant context back to the PO creator while an order or record can still be adjusted, helping protect negotiated value, improve cash timing and prevent downstream rework.

Explore the procurement dashboardsDetected cases for each signal, portfolio value, departments and buyer action.

Negotiated price

Applicable purchasing conditions · existing PO price corrections

01 / 07

Detected cases80800 eligible PO checks

Notified POs6020 findings held for review

PO price reductions£45,00030 PO price corrections

Invoice savings£30,00020 final invoices verified

Notification outcomes

Status at 30 Sep

Invoice verified

Corrected · evidence pending

No correction observed

Follow-up unresolved

010203040

Notified PO cases

Invoice savings by department

GBP · final invoice evidence

Manufacturing

£15,000

Facilities

£4,500

£3,000

Logistics

£7,500

£0£5k£10k£15k£20k

GBP · final invoice evidence

Detected signal log

Showing 6 sampled cases · 60 notified POs

Negotiated price — sampled case log
PO	Detected	PO creator	Department	Evidence / proposed correction	Candidate value / impact	Status
4501101	03 Jun	Michael Turner	Manufacturing	PC-410: £2.65/kg → £2.40/kg; Apply condition PC410-B-06	£6,000	Invoice verified
4501102	05 Jun	Amelia Grant	Facilities	300 h: £55/h → agreed £50/h; Apply signed rate CR-026	£1,500	Invoice verified
4501103	10 Jun	James Wilson	Manufacturing	600 units: £28 → agreed £26; Use active condition PX205-A	£1,200	PO corrected
4501104	12 Jun	Tom Evans	Logistics	100 loads: £185 → agreed £160; Check lane schedule TR-062	£2,500	Window closed
4501105	17 Jun	Priya Shah	IT	120 users: £250 → schedule £235; Confirm renewal exception	£1,800	Exception retained
4501106	24 Jun	Sarah Bennett	Logistics	450 pallet-weeks: £6 → £4; Check rate ST-014 before release	£900	Awaiting action

Selected PO · 4501101

Polymer PC-410 · Plant B

Evidence: Condition PC410-B-06 · valid from 1 Jun · £240 per 100 kg = £2.40/kg
Created PO: 24,000 kg × £2.65/kg = £63,600
Proposed correction: Apply £2.40/kg to the same material, plant and supplier: £57,600
Owner / change: Michael Turner · price amended 4 Jun
Verified outcome: INV-82641 · 19 Jun · £6,000 net saving

June 2026 cohort · value status at 30 September 2026

Payment terms

Agreed terms · cash timing on existing orders

02 / 07

Detected cases60500 eligible PO checks

Notified POs4515 findings held for review

Terms corrected25£400,000 of invoice value

Payments moved later£240,00015 invoices · 45 days later

Notification outcomes

Status at 30 Sep

Payment verified

Corrected · evidence pending

No correction observed

Follow-up unresolved

010203040

Notified PO cases

Payments moved later

45 days · paid invoices

Manufacturing

£64,000

Facilities

£48,000

£80,000

Logistics

£48,000

£0£25k£50k£75k£100k

45 days · paid invoices

Detected signal log

Showing 6 sampled cases · 45 notified POs

Payment terms — sampled case log
PO	Detected	PO creator	Department	Evidence / proposed correction	Candidate value / impact	Status
4501201	08 Jun	Priya Shah	IT	Net 15 → supplier baseline Net 60; Confirm and set agreed Net 60	£16,000 · +45d	Payment verified
4501202	09 Jun	Michael Turner	Manufacturing	Net 15 → contract Net 60; Use terms MA-026	£32,000 · +45d	Payment verified
4501203	12 Jun	Lucy Morgan	Facilities	Net 15 → signed Net 60; Align PO with framework FM-014	£16,000 · +45d	Payment verified
4501204	16 Jun	Daniel Hayes	IT	Net 15 → renewal Net 60; Set confirmed renewal terms	£16,000 · +45d	PO corrected
4501205	22 Jun	James Wilson	Manufacturing	Net 15 → master baseline Net 60; Check signed exception	£12,000 · +45d	Exception retained
4501206	25 Jun	Sarah Bennett	Logistics	Net 15 → framework Net 60; Request term amendment	£20,000 · +45d	Window closed

Selected PO · 4501201

Network support renewal

Evidence: Signed renewal confirms simple Net 60 · same supplier and company code
Created PO: £16,000 · Net 15 from invoice date
Proposed correction: Set agreed Net 60; price remains £16,000
Owner / change: Priya Shah · terms amended 9 Jun
Payment record: Invoice 13 Jun · original due 28 Jun · revised due / actual paid 12 Aug
Verified outcome: £16,000 paid 45 days later · purchase price unchanged

June 2026 cohort · value status at 30 September 2026

PO record quality

Scope, references and billing basis · readiness for receipt and invoice

03 / 07

Detected cases80500 eligible PO checks

Notified POs6020 findings held for review

PO records corrected355 awaiting owner acceptance

Ready before invoice30Required context accepted

Notification outcomes

Status at 30 Sep

Record accepted

Corrected · evidence pending

No correction observed

Follow-up unresolved

010203040

Notified PO cases

Records ready by department

Accepted before first invoice

Manufacturing

Facilities

Logistics

05101520

Accepted before first invoice

Detected signal log

Showing 6 sampled cases · 60 notified POs

PO record quality — sampled case log
PO	Detected	PO creator	Department	Evidence / proposed correction	Candidate value / impact	Status
4501301	10 Jun	Amelia Grant	Facilities	Period + SOW reference missing; Link MS-043; add Jul–Sep scope	Service period and agreement available for invoice review	Record accepted
4501302	11 Jun	James Wilson	Manufacturing	PX205 description / PX105 code; Align code with quotation Q-749	One consistent item reference before release	Record accepted
4501303	15 Jun	Daniel Hayes	IT	Day-rate PO / fixed-fee SOW; Record deliverables + SOW-091	Deliverable acceptance basis available for service receipt	Record accepted
4501304	18 Jun	Michael Turner	Manufacturing	End date + off-hire owner missing; Add MP-064 dates and owner	Hire period and off-hire responsibility recorded	Record accepted
4501305	19 Jun	Tom Evans	Logistics	Asset list + sites not linked; Link schedule AS-225	Asset and site scope available to the receipt owner	Record accepted
4501306	24 Jun	Sarah Bennett	Logistics	Support period + reference missing; Link WS-033 and Oct–Dec period	Required context added; downstream acceptance outstanding	Owner check pending

Selected PO · 4501303

Reporting-system project

Evidence: SOW-091 · £40,000 fixed fee against two accepted deliverables
Created PO: 40 days × £1,000 · no SOW or deliverable acceptance reference
Proposed correction: Record fixed-fee basis, SOW reference and agreed acceptance requirements
Owner / change: Daniel Hayes · amended 16 Jun · receipt owner accepted 17 Jun
Observed outcome: Acceptance context ready before first invoice on 15 Jul · fee unchanged

June 2026 cohort · value status at 30 September 2026

Approved packaging

Qualified carton alternatives · material content and cost

04 / 07

Detected cases20200 eligible PO checks

Notified POs155 findings held for review

Approved switches1015,000 kg planned · £2,000 premium

Extra recovered fibre9,000 kg60,000 cartons received · £1,200 premium

Notification outcomes

Status at 30 Sep

Receipt verified

Corrected · evidence pending

No correction observed

Follow-up unresolved

010203040

Notified PO cases

Recovered fibre received

Additional material content

Manufacturing

3,000 kg

Logistics

6,000 kg

02,0004,0006,0008,000

Additional material content

Detected signal log

Showing 6 sampled cases · 15 notified POs

Approved packaging — sampled case log
PO	Detected	PO creator	Department	Evidence / proposed correction	Candidate value / impact	Status
4501401	04 Jun	Tom Evans	Logistics	50% → approved 80% recovered fibre; Switch 20,000 to CTN-440R	3,000 kg · +£400	Receipt verified
4501402	08 Jun	Michael Turner	Manufacturing	50% → approved 80% recovered fibre; Switch 15,000 to CTN-260R	2,250 kg · +£300	Receipt verified
4501403	12 Jun	Sarah Bennett	Logistics	50% → approved 80% recovered fibre; Switch 10,000 to CTN-440R	1,500 kg · +£200	Receipt verified
4501404	16 Jun	James Wilson	Manufacturing	50% → approved 80% recovered fibre; Switch 10,000 to CTN-260R	1,500 kg · +£200	PO corrected
4501405	19 Jun	Tom Evans	Logistics	50% → approved 80% recovered fibre; Switch 10,000 to CTN-440R	1,500 kg · +£200	PO corrected
4501406	24 Jun	James Wilson	Manufacturing	50% → approved 80% recovered fibre; Confirm delivery before switching	1,500 kg · +£200	Exception retained

Selected PO · 4501401

Shipping carton CTN-440 · North warehouse

Evidence: Engineering approval PK-044 · same dimensions, stacking and packing requirements
Created PO: 20,000 cartons · 0.50 kg fibre each · 50% recovered fibre · £0.78 each
Proposed correction: Qualified CTN-440R · 80% recovered fibre · £0.80 each · approved £400 premium
Owner / change: Tom Evans · amended 5 Jun · GR-61840 received 16 Jun
Verified outcome: 20,000 × 0.50 kg × (80% − 50%) = 3,000 kg additional recovered fibre

June 2026 cohort · value status at 30 September 2026

Signal portfolio

Four implemented signals · distinct business outcomes

05 / 07

Verified purchase savings£30,00020 final-invoice cases · net saving

Payments moved later£240,00015 paid invoices · 45 days later

Records ready for invoice30Required context accepted before invoice

Additional recovered fibre9,000 kg60,000 cartons received · £1,200 premium

Corrections by signal

Corrected / emailed; changes occurred while the PO was adjustable

Negotiated price

50.0%

30 / 60

Payment terms

55.6%

25 / 45

Incomplete records

58.3%

35 / 60

Approved packaging

66.7%

10 / 15

0%25%50%75%100%

Correction rate · emailed-case denominator

Corrections awaiting outcome evidence

An amendment alone does not verify a business benefit

Negotiated price

Final invoice

Payment terms

Actual payment

Incomplete records

Downstream acceptance

Approved packaging

Receipt and declaration

036912

Corrected cases needing outcome verification

Implementation and business result

Actionable cases were emailed; every value retains its own unit

Implemented signal, actionable cases, corrections and checked outcome
Signal	Implemented	Actionable	Corrected	Verified outcome	Next decision
Negotiated price	Operating · 2 Mar	60	30	£30,000 saved	Verify invoices for 10 further corrections.
Payment terms	Operating · 13 Apr	45	25	£240k · 45 days later	Confirm payment dates on 10 corrected cases.
Incomplete records	Operating · 11 May	60	35	30 accepted records	Track subsequent clarification and invoice queries.
Approved packaging	Operating · 1 Jun	15	10	9,000 kg · +£1,200	Verify four further deliveries and cost approvals.
Portfolio	4 signals	180	100	Different value units	Verify the remaining 29 corrected cases.

June 2026 cohort · value status at 30 September 2026

Department review priorities

Signal incidence, corrections and follow-up priorities

06 / 07

Manufacturing price opportunity£40,50027 actionable price cases · not saving

Facilities signal incidence20%60 generated / 300 eligible checks

IT cash affected£256,00016 actionable term cases · 45 days

Logistics fibre opportunity13,500 kg9 packaging cases · £1,800 premium

Signal incidence by department

Generated cases / eligible PO+signal checks

Manufacturing

10.0%

80 / 800

Facilities

20.0%

60 / 300

10.0%

40 / 400

Logistics

12.0%

60 / 500

0%5%10%15%20%25%

Case incidence · eligible-check denominator

Action on emailed opportunities

Corrected / emailed; departments have different signal mixes

Manufacturing

60.0%

36 / 60

Facilities

55.6%

25 / 45

60.0%

18 / 30

Logistics

46.7%

21 / 45

0%25%50%75%100%

Correction rate · emailed-case denominator

Where to intervene next

Department exposure, corrective action and follow-up priorities

Department incidence, actionable cases and review decision
Department	Cases / eligible	Emailed	Corrected	Review priority	Next decision
Manufacturing	80 / 800	60	36	Price · £40,500 opportunity	Verify 5 corrected-price cases awaiting invoices.
Facilities	60 / 300	45	25	Records · 26 actionable cases	Improve service-reference capture; 13 records now accepted.
IT	40 / 400	30	18	Terms · £256,000 cash affected	Review term exceptions; check 4 further payment outcomes.
Logistics	60 / 500	45	21	Packaging · 13,500 kg potential	Check 2 further receipts and the £1,800 potential premium.
Total	240 / 2,000	180	100	Four distinct business outcomes	Review each signal and amendment window.

Incidence = detected / eligible checks · action = corrected / notified cases

Buyer action and outcome evidence

Correction activity and verified outcomes by PO creator

07 / 07

Most corrections21Michael · 34 emailed cases, 30 observable

Michael: verified price saving£10,5007 final-invoice price cases

Amelia: records accepted9Required context before first invoice

Tom: recovered fibre added4,500 kg3 received orders · £600 premium

Who corrected the most cases

Top four by count · rate uses the cases each person received

Michael Turner

21 / 34 · 61.8%

Amelia Grant

16 / 28 · 57.1%

James Wilson

15 / 26 · 57.7%

Tom Evans

13 / 27 · 48.1%

0510152025

Corrected PO+signal cases

Outcome evidence still needed

All eight creators · top four plus the other four

Michael Turner

16 outcomes checked

Amelia Grant

13 outcomes checked

James Wilson

10 outcomes checked

Tom Evans

9 outcomes checked

Other four creators

23 outcomes checked

051015

Corrected cases awaiting signal-specific verification

Follow up the useful corrections

Support and outcome verification

Buyer correction opportunities and checked business-outcome cases
Creator	Corrected / emailed	Outcome checked	Next decision
Michael Turner	21 / 34 (61.8%)	16	Verify 3 further price cases against final invoices.
Amelia Grant	16 / 28 (57.1%)	13	Check acceptance on the remaining record case.
James Wilson	15 / 26 (57.7%)	10	Verify price invoices and the pending carton receipt.
Tom Evans	13 / 27 (48.1%)	9	Check supplied cartons and the remaining term payment.
Other four creators	35 / 65 (53.8%)	23	Resolve the remaining 12 outcome-evidence checks.
Total	100 / 180 (55.6%)	71	29 corrected cases still require outcome evidence.

15 emailed cases lack a follow-up status · 29 corrected cases await outcome evidence

Illustrative reports: all data, names and outcomes are simulated, not client results.

05 / Delivery

Build on
the evidence.

Following the assessment, Datanovel implements the selected signals one by one, on your platform and with your team. Each connects detection, a targeted buyer message and measurement of what happens next.

A client-owned capability.
Built inside your environment.

BuildA practical first capabilityOne selected signal, a buyer message and a value dashboard.

Implementation starts with an agreed signal from the assessment. The build connects the required data, detection logic, confidence and value thresholds, message routing and a dashboard for tracking the relevant outcome.

Your procurement, data and analytics teams are involved during the build. The logic, data model and operating approach are shaped around your process and platform, then tested with the business.

OperateEstablish value in practiceReview signals, refine messages and observe what happens.

The capability runs with your team. Signals are reviewed, context messages refined, agreed outcomes observed and value evaluated. Behavioural memory begins to build inside your environment.

As the first signal becomes established, the next selected signal can move into implementation. Each addition builds on the data connections and operating experience already developed, with scope agreed for that signal.

TransferRetain the capability within your teamWorking logic, data model, dashboards and operating knowledge.

Build–Operate–Transfer prepares your internal team to support and maintain the capability, including changes to source tables, schemas, business rules and dashboard needs.

The team learns during delivery. Datanovel remains available for consultation, refinement and implementation of further signals as priorities develop.

Delivery in your environmentPreferred platforms, flexible delivery.

Celonis and Databricks are preferred delivery platforms, not prerequisites. Datanovel can also deliver on your existing approved platform, including Microsoft Fabric. The choice follows your procurement priorities, available capabilities, access and operating needs; the assessment establishes how the agreed scope can be delivered in your environment.

Celonis: connect process data, identify where work stops and bring evidence, business input and follow-up actions into the improvement cycle. For example, an invoice-blocking pattern could lead to a targeted review of missing PO references, an owner decision and tracking of whether the issue is resolved. Delivery can span data extraction and SQL transformations, Knowledge Models, PQL, views and Action Flows, supporting the define, measure, analyse, improve and control stages of DMAIC.

Databricks: explore procurement data, prepare it and prototype rules, models and AI-assisted analysis for early business review. For example, a working prototype could extract service periods from PO descriptions for a buyer to check against the supporting document. SQL, data pipelines and AI functions help turn a requirement into something the business can see, test and refine before wider implementation.

Prediction models are trained on your procurement data and run on your approved compute. They work alongside business rules and evidence matching to detect and assess signals in already-created POs. A missing reference or an agreed-price exception may be established directly; other signals depend on learned patterns.

The assessment checks the data, history, access, compute and timing needed for each signal before implementation is agreed.

Where LLM support is useful, the model is selected with you and used within permitted AI services and security controls. A retrieval layer can ground messages in approved procurement context, rather than generic model assumptions.

Why Build–Operate–Transfer?A capability shaped around your procurement reality.

Useful context depends on your buying routes, supplier terms, local governance and the ways systems and fields have been configured. The capability is built around that reality from the start.

Build–Operate–Transfer combines implementation with operating experience and a supported handover. Digital DMAIC sits within this approach: define, measure, analyse, improve and control each value area before expanding further.

Start with an assessment

Where should your
organisation start?

Discuss your procurement priorities, data environment and the opportunities an assessment could help establish.

Contact Datanovel on LinkedIn

Andrey Matveev

Founder & Delivery Lead
Datanovel

Andrey's experience spans supplier data management, procurement analytics and operational reporting, including developing and operating supplier-verification tools.

He leads each engagement directly, with specialist support brought in where the work requires it.

Vendor master data

Supplier master data. Ready for migration and integration.

Cross-system identity, migration and integration readiness, and managed cleansing on your existing platforms.

Explore vendor master data Supplier Commercial Intelligence

See the patterns behind supplier value erosion.

Review recurring pricing, charge and product changes. Give category managers the evidence to act.

Explore supplier commercial intelligence

Find the value in your procurement data.

Establish the opportunity.

Where value can slip away.

With a little help from your data.

Possible overlapping demand for Site A

A newer price may apply to PO 9033408

Payment terms worth checking on PO 9033516

Confirm the service period and reference on PO 9033614

The description and material code differ on PO 9033628

An approved carton alternative is available for PO 9033641

An approved refurbished option could meet PO 9033657

A quantity adjustment could lower the total on PO 9033701

Related site orders may qualify for the same volume price

Check the scanner specification on PO 9033724

Add the planned hire period to PO 9033739

Align the billing basis on PO 9033740 with the approved SOW

Link the asset schedule to inspection PO 9033752

Signals become context. Actions become insight.

Detect

Check

Share

Observe

Learn

Negotiated price

Payment terms

PO record quality

Approved packaging

Signal portfolio

Department review priorities

Buyer action and outcome evidence

Build on the evidence.

Where should your organisation start?

Andrey Matveev

Supplier master data. Ready for migration and integration.

See the patterns behind supplier value erosion.

Establish the
opportunity.

Where value can
slip away.

With a little help
from your data.

Signals become context.
Actions become insight.

Build on
the evidence.

Where should your
organisation start?