Key takeaways
- Post-signature governance is where margin is actually lost. Leakage isn’t caused by poor negotiation — it comes from missed indexation adjustments, untracked rebate thresholds, auto-renewals without review, and ESG obligations that never leave the PDF.
- The gap is between the contract layer and the SAP layer. Most EMEA industrial and energy companies already run mature SAP-centric architectures (S/4HANA, Ariba). The issue isn’t the absence of systems. It’s that contract logic isn’t structured and connected to the PO, invoice, and performance data where procurement actually works.
- Start with a single category to quantify leakage. Pick one high-value category (e.g., turbine services, critical components, transport). Look for auto-renewal exposures, whether indexation formulas are actually applied, and whether negotiated rebates and discounts are being tracked and claimed. SAP spend data + a small Ironclad-enabled contract sample can surface a strong first view quickly.
- Post-signature ownership must be assigned explicitly. Too much effort goes into pre-signature and negotiation, then the contract lands in a drawer. Best practice: procurement owns commercial realization and tracking; legal owns standards, templates, and risk guardrails; operations/asset teams own SLA performance and corrective actions. Embed this into existing QBRs with contract-derived data from Ironclad feeding SAP and BI views.
Interested in seeing how how Ironclad’s AI can help automate your contracting? Talk to one of our digital contracting specialists and get a custom demo.
Ironclad is not a law firm, and this post does not constitute or contain legal advice. To evaluate the accuracy, sufficiency, or reliability of the ideas and guidance reflected here, or the applicability of these materials to your business, you should consult with a licensed attorney. Use of and access to any of the resources contained within Ironclad’s site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the user and Ironclad.
