Kodiak Community Blog

How guided buying reduces maverick spend in procurement

Written by Richard Teuchler | January 30, 2026

If you have ever seen a budget get torched by "just one urgent purchase," you already know the pattern: someone needs something fast, the approved path feels slow, and procurement only hears about it when the invoice shows up.

That is maverick spend in a nutshell - and guided buying is one of the most practical ways to stop it without becoming the procurement police.

Quick definitions

What is maverick spend?
Maverick spend (or maverick spending) is purchasing that happens outside your approved process, preferred suppliers, or negotiated terms. It shows up as off-contract buying, non-PO invoices, one-off suppliers, and "we already bought it" surprises. (CIPS)

What is guided buying?
Guided buying is a purchasing experience that steers employees to the right channel, right supplier, and right terms at the moment they buy - with policy, approvals, and budget checks embedded into the workflow.

Why maverick spend keeps happening (even with policies)

Most maverick spend is not rebellion. It is friction.

Common causes across manufacturing, food and beverage, energy, utilities, law firms, and insurance:

  • The compliant path is harder than the non-compliant path (email approvals, unclear steps, slow turnaround).

  • People cannot find what they are supposed to buy (no simple portal, too many systems, outdated supplier lists).

  • Budgets are enforced late (after the PO, or worse, after the invoice).

  • Supplier and contract data is scattered (nobody trusts the "latest" info).

  • Exceptions become the norm ("we had to move fast" becomes a habit).

Research consistently points to this theme: when buying is hard, users route around procurement. Studies on maverick buying and non-compliant purchasing behavior highlight process design and user context as major drivers. (Dr Katri Karjalainen)

What guided buying changes (in plain English)

Guided buying does not win by adding more rules.

It wins by making compliant buying feel like the default:

  • fewer decisions for the requester

  • fewer places to shop

  • fewer steps to get approved

  • fewer ways to "accidentally" buy off-contract

That is why guided buying is repeatedly linked with higher adoption and better compliance. In one benchmark report, 75% of end users said self-service and guided buying tools would help reduce maverick spending, but fewer than 40% of companies had those tools in place at the time. (Supply & Demand Chain Executive)

6 ways guided buying reduces maverick spend in procurement

1) Preferred options show up first

Users search what they need, and the system prioritizes:

  • contracted items

  • approved suppliers

  • negotiated pricing

  • pre-approved service options

Less hunting = fewer off-contract purchases.

2) It routes people to the right buying channel

Catalog item? Great - order it.
New service? Use an intake form.
High-risk supplier? Trigger checks before purchase.

This is where guided buying quietly kills "random vendor" spend.

3) Approvals stop being email theater

Instead of never-ending threads, approvals are:

  • rules-based (by category, spend threshold, risk)

  • traceable (who approved what, when)

  • faster (approvers get the right context, not a 12-paragraph justification)

4) Budget checks happen at the moment of intent

This is the difference between controlling spend and explaining it later.

Guided buying can validate budget rules early, such as:

  • cost center budget availability

  • project budget limits

  • thresholds that require additional approval

  • blocked categories for certain teams

5) It makes exceptions visible (and therefore rare)

Some exceptions are valid. The problem is invisible exceptions.

Guided buying forces exceptions into a trackable flow:

  • why it is off-catalog/off-contract

  • who approved it

  • whether it should be added as a preferred option next time

6) It improves savings capture, not just compliance

Hackett benchmarking highlights the outcome procurement leaders care about: when organizations improve processes and stakeholder adoption, they reduce maverick buying and contract noncompliance - resulting in 60% less savings lost. (Hackett Group)

How to reduce maverick spend and enforce budgets: a practical playbook

Here is a playbook that works whether you are battling MRO sprawl in manufacturing, services spend in energy/utilities, or uncontrolled professional services in legal and insurance.

Step 1: Start with maverick spend analysis (keep it simple)

You do not need perfect data to find the biggest leaks. Start with:

  • invoices with no PO

  • suppliers created in the last 90 days

  • spend in categories with no preferred vendors

  • repeat buys from "one-time" suppliers

  • purchases over threshold without documented approval

Academic research on mitigating maverick spend repeatedly points to visibility and structured e-procurement as key levers for improving compliance. (IJOQM)

Step 2: Define guardrails people can actually follow

A simple policy that works:

  • Preferred supplier first

  • Approved exception flow second

  • Everything else blocked or escalated

Step 3: Design guided buying around the top 10 categories that cause chaos

Most organizations have a few repeat offenders:

  • MRO and tools (manufacturing, utilities)

  • temporary labor and contractors (energy, manufacturing)

  • marketing and print (F&B, insurance)

  • IT and SaaS (everyone)

  • outside counsel and expert services (law firms, insurance)

Build guided paths for these categories first.

Step 4: Enforce budgets inside the workflow (not after the fact)

Budget enforcement that actually sticks usually includes:

  • "request-to-buy" approval before money moves

  • threshold-based approvals tied to delegation of authority

  • budget owners as approvers for specific categories

  • real-time blocks for restricted categories or out-of-policy suppliers

Step 5: Review exceptions monthly and convert the useful ones into standards

If 30 people requested the same off-catalog service last quarter, that is not "maverick behavior." That is a missing guided option.

Where SRM fits: guided buying is only as good as your supplier truth

Guided buying needs clean inputs:

  • who is approved

  • which suppliers are preferred for each category

  • which contracts apply

  • which suppliers are compliant and up to date

  • which suppliers are high-risk and need extra checks

That is SRM territory.

An SRM platform helps by keeping supplier onboarding, supplier qualification, supplier documents, risk signals, and supplier master context structured and current - so guided buying can confidently recommend the right suppliers (and block the wrong ones).

This is where Kodiak Hub typically fits best: as the supplier system of record that keeps your supplier base clean, qualified, and mapped to the right categories before employees start buying. 

Metrics to prove it is working

Track these monthly:

  • % spend on contract (contract compliance rate)

  • of one-time suppliers created

  • % invoices without PO

  • average approval cycle time

  • budget variance by cost center/category

  • exception rate (and top reasons)

FAQ

Is guided buying only for indirect spend?
No. It is often easiest to start with indirect, but guided intake workflows can support direct categories too, especially services, contractors, and spot buys.

What is the fastest win?
Turn your top 5-10 chaotic categories into guided paths with clear preferred options and budget-aware approvals.

What role does SRM play if we already have P2P?
P2P guides the transaction. SRM governs supplier readiness: qualification, compliance, contracts, performance, and risk. That is what keeps the guided choices accurate over time.

Closing thought

The goal is not to "stop people buying." The goal is to make the right buy the easy buy - and enforce budgets before spend escapes.