Sample Report — This is a representative demonstration. Client reports are accessed via a private link.
Confidential — Executive Report
Operational Maturity
Assessment™
Sample Organization · Technology / SaaS · $50–100M Revenue
Prepared by
Keith Tice Advisory, LLC
keithtice.com
Weighted OMI™ Score
2
of 7.0 — Developing
Peer Benchmark Avg
3.6
Same size & industry
Gap to Peer Avg
−1.6
Points below benchmark
Domains Assessed
31
Across all operational areas
Operational Maturity Index™
Current Maturity Level: Developing
The organization is operating at a Developing level across the 15 assessed domains. This is common for organizations at this stage of growth — but it represents a meaningful gap relative to peers and a significant opportunity for value creation.
The peer benchmark of 3.6 (Structured) reflects organizations of similar size and industry profile. Closing this gap is achievable within 12–18 months with focused execution on the priority domains identified in this report.
“A score of 2 is not a failure — it is a starting point. The organizations that move fastest are those that prioritize ruthlessly and execute with discipline.”
— Keith Tice
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Domain Coverage Map
Peer Comparison by Category
Where You Stand vs. Peers
Peer benchmark reflects organizations with $50–100M revenue in SaaS/Technology. Gold bar = peer average. Blue bar = your score.
Prioritization Framework
Easy Wins vs. Hard Decisions
Domains are mapped across two axes — implementation effort and business impact. The recommended sequencing is: Easy Wins first to build momentum and demonstrate value, then Strategic Priorities, then Hard Decisions with proper resourcing.
Easy Wins
Low effort · High impact · Start here
Spend Visibility & Analytics
Commercial & Financial Discipline
Governance, Policy & Decision…
Reporting, Measurement & Value…
Procurement Measurement & Performance…
ROI Discipline & Investment…
Spend Analytics, Concentration &…
Strategic Priorities
Medium effort · High impact · Phase 2
Enterprise Governance & Operating…
Procurement vs. Purchasing Maturity
Contracts, Legal & Risk
Category Management & Market…
Strategic Influence
Real Estate, Facilities &…
People, Workforce & Operational…
Finance Alignment & Operational…
Forecasting Maturity & Accuracy
Growth Accounting vs. Budget…
Vendor Management & Supplier…
Data Integrity & Operational…
Hard Decisions
High effort · High impact · Resource carefully
M&A Integration & Redundancy…
Quick Fills
Low effort · Medium impact · Fill gaps
Procurement Tool Investment vs.…
NDA, JDA & Confidentiality…
Budgeting Discipline — Line-Item…
Domain Results
All 31 Domains — Detailed Findings
Each domain is scored against the 7-level Operational Maturity Index™ and benchmarked against peer organizations. Data and analytics domains carry elevated weight in the OMI™ score. Keith’s assessment commentary follows each score.
Enterprise Governance & Operating Model
Keith’s Assessment
Governance structure is fragmented. Decision rights are unclear at the operational level, creating escalation bottlenecks and slowing execution. This is foundational — without it, every other improvement is harder to sustain.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.8
Procurement vs. Purchasing Maturity
Keith’s Assessment
The organization is purchasing, not procuring. Transactions are being processed but strategic value — supplier leverage, category strategy, demand management — is not being captured. This is a significant value leakage point.
Developing
Peer Avg
4.1
Spend Visibility & Analytics
Keith’s Assessment
Spend visibility is the single highest-leverage starting point. Without reliable spend data, every other initiative is operating blind. Classification, coverage, and reporting cadence need immediate attention.
Reactive
Peer Avg
3.5
Technology, ERP & Tool Usage
Keith’s Assessment
ERP is in place but adoption depth is shallow. Tools are owned, not used. The gap between system capability and actual utilization is wide — this is a training and process issue more than a technology gap.
Structured
Peer Avg
4.2
Commercial & Financial Discipline
Keith’s Assessment
Payment terms are not being actively managed. Discount capture is inconsistent. Working capital opportunities are being left on the table. This is a near-term financial discipline issue with measurable impact.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.9
Supplier & Vendor Ecosystem
Keith’s Assessment
Supplier count is high relative to spend. Rationalization opportunity exists. Strategic segmentation is absent — all suppliers are being managed the same way regardless of criticality or spend.
Structured
Peer Avg
3.6
Contracts, Legal & Risk
Keith’s Assessment
Contract ownership is unclear. Renewal management is reactive. Risk review is not embedded in the procurement process. This creates exposure that is difficult to quantify until something goes wrong.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.7
Inventory & Supply Chain
Keith’s Assessment
Inventory management is the strongest domain in this assessment. Processes are defined and reasonably consistent. The opportunity is in forecasting accuracy and vendor-managed inventory expansion.
Integrated
Peer Avg
3.4
Team, Talent & Structure
Keith’s Assessment
Team structure is adequate for current scale but not for the next phase. Category expertise is thin. Succession planning is absent. The team is executing tactically but lacks strategic capacity.
Structured
Peer Avg
3.8
Governance, Policy & Decision Authority
Keith’s Assessment
Policy exists but is not consistently enforced. Spend authority matrix is outdated. Approval workflows create friction without adding governance value. This is a quick structural fix with meaningful compliance impact.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.5
Category Management & Market Intelligence
Keith’s Assessment
Category management is the most underdeveloped capability in this assessment. Market intelligence is informal. Negotiation preparation is reactive. This is where the most procurement value creation lives.
Reactive
Peer Avg
3.3
M&A Integration & Redundancy Elimination
Keith’s Assessment
M&A readiness is low. Procurement has not been involved in prior transactions. No integration playbook exists. Given the organization's growth trajectory, this is a critical gap to address proactively.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.1
Reporting, Measurement & Value Creation
Keith’s Assessment
Measurement is activity-based, not value-based. Cost savings are tracked inconsistently. Cost avoidance is not captured. Leadership does not have a clear view of operational value creation — which limits investment in the function.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.6
Audit, Controls & Compliance
Keith’s Assessment
Controls are in place but audit findings indicate recurring gaps in procurement compliance. Policy adherence is inconsistent. This is manageable but requires structured remediation before the next audit cycle.
Structured
Peer Avg
3.9
Strategic Influence
Keith’s Assessment
Operational leadership does not have a meaningful seat at the table. Procurement is not involved in strategic planning, M&A, or budgeting. This limits the function's ability to drive enterprise value and constrains its influence.
Reactive
Peer Avg
3.2
Procurement Tool Investment vs. Expense Framing
Keith’s Assessment
Procurement tool spend is viewed as a cost line rather than an investment. ROI is not tracked. This framing limits tool adoption, budget justification, and the ability to make the case for capability investment. Reframing this as a value-generating investment — with measurable returns — is a quick win that changes the internal conversation.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.4
Procurement Measurement & Performance Metrics
Keith’s Assessment
Procurement measurement is activity-based, not value-based. Savings are tracked inconsistently, cost avoidance is not captured, and payment terms improvement is not reported. Without a clear measurement framework, the function cannot demonstrate its contribution — which limits its influence and its budget.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.7
Real Estate, Facilities & Location Strategy
Keith’s Assessment
Real estate and facilities decisions appear to be driven by historical inertia rather than strategic design. Lease exposure is not actively managed, rent benchmarking is absent, and location rationalization has not been completed following recent growth. This is a meaningful cost and risk exposure that is not receiving appropriate executive attention.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.3
People, Workforce & Operational Redundancy
Keith’s Assessment
Workforce structure has accumulated organically. Role duplication exists across functions and — where applicable — across acquired entities. Span of control is inconsistent. The organization is carrying headcount cost that does not map cleanly to operational output. A structured workforce review would identify consolidation and efficiency opportunities without requiring broad reductions.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.5
Outsourced Services Assessment & Vendor Perf.
Keith’s Assessment
Outsourced services are not being systematically evaluated. SLA performance is not tracked consistently, cost benchmarking against market rates is absent, and make vs. buy decisions are not reviewed on a defined cycle. The organization is likely overpaying for some services and underperforming on others — without the visibility to know which.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.6
Tax Management & Structural Efficiency
Keith’s Assessment
Tax strategy is not well-coordinated with operational and M&A decisions. Transfer pricing, entity rationalization, and depreciation strategy are managed reactively. Given the organization's growth trajectory and acquisition activity, this is a meaningful exposure. Finance and operations need a more structured coordination model on tax-impacting decisions.
Structured
Peer Avg
3.8
NDA, JDA & Confidentiality Agreement Management
Keith’s Assessment
NDA and JDA management is reactive. There is no central repository, expiration tracking is informal, and standard vs. negotiated terms are not consistently applied. This creates confidentiality exposure and limits the organization's ability to enforce or renegotiate agreements. This is a low-effort, high-risk-reduction fix.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.2
Depreciation Cycles & Asset Management
Keith’s Assessment
Depreciation schedules are set at acquisition and rarely revisited. The asset register is incomplete. Technology assets in particular are being depreciated on schedules that do not reflect actual useful life or refresh cycles. This creates both financial reporting risk and capex planning blind spots.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.4
ROI Discipline & Investment Decision Frameworks
Keith’s Assessment
ROI discipline is inconsistent. Major investments receive some analysis, but post-investment performance is not tracked. Smaller operational investments are made without formal ROI frameworks. The result is a portfolio of investments with no accountability for outcomes — and no learning loop to improve future decisions.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.7
Finance Alignment & Operational Partnership
Keith’s Assessment
Finance and operations are not operating as partners. Finance provides reporting but is not embedded in operational decision-making. Budget accountability is not jointly owned. This creates a gap between financial targets and operational reality — and limits the organization's ability to course-correct quickly when performance deviates from plan.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.9
Forecasting Maturity & Accuracy
Keith’s Assessment
Forecasting is annual with limited reforecast cadence. Driver-based models are not in use. Forecast accuracy is not tracked. Operational leaders are not owning their forecast inputs — they are delegating them to finance and then disputing the outputs. This is a structural problem that requires both process and accountability changes.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.8
Budgeting Discipline — Line-Item vs. Bucket
Keith’s Assessment
Budgeting is incremental and bucket-level. Line-item accountability is limited. Budget vs. actual variance analysis is performed but not acted upon consistently. The budget process is designed for a steady-state business — not a scaling one. Zero-based or driver-based budgeting would create significantly more discipline and visibility.
Structured
Peer Avg
3.6
Growth Accounting vs. Budget Management
Keith’s Assessment
Growth investment is not distinguished from run-rate operational cost. The organization cannot clearly answer how much it is spending on growth vs. maintaining the business. This makes it impossible to evaluate growth ROI, manage growth spend accountability, or make informed decisions about where to accelerate or pull back.
Reactive
Peer Avg
3.3
Vendor Management & Supplier Categorization
Keith’s Assessment
Vendor management is transactional. Suppliers are not formally categorized — strategic, leverage, preferred, and tail vendors are all managed the same way, which means the organization is spending relationship capital on low-value vendors while under-investing in the ones that matter most. Core supplier leverage is not being captured. Quarterly business reviews are informal or absent. Business stakeholders are not consistently included in negotiations, which limits commercial outcomes and creates misalignment between what procurement negotiates and what the business actually needs.
Developing
Peer Avg
3.5
Spend Analytics, Concentration & Tail Spend
Keith’s Assessment
Spend concentration has not been analyzed. The organization does not know which vendors represent 80% of its spend, which means it cannot prioritize supplier relationships, negotiation effort, or risk management with any precision. Tail spend is unmanaged — a long list of low-value vendors consuming disproportionate administrative cost and compliance risk. Spend analytics capability is limited to ERP reporting, which provides transaction history but not actionable insight. Without Pareto visibility, every spend decision is made in the dark.
Reactive
Peer Avg
3.4
Data Integrity & Operational Data Quality
Keith’s Assessment
Data integrity is the foundational issue that limits every other domain in this assessment. Leadership does not fully trust the numbers. Vendor master data contains duplicates. Spend classification is inconsistent across business units. Reporting data does not always reconcile to ERP source-of-truth. Until data integrity is addressed, every downstream process — spend analytics, forecasting, supplier performance, ROI tracking — is built on an unreliable foundation. This is not a technology problem. It is a governance and accountability problem that requires ownership, standards, and enforcement.
Reactive
Peer Avg
3.6
Recommended Roadmap
Priority Sequencing — 18-Month View
The following roadmap reflects the recommended sequencing based on effort, impact, and organizational readiness. This is a starting framework — actual sequencing will be refined through engagement.
Phase 01 — Immediate
0–90 Days
Establish spend data foundation — classification, coverage, reporting cadence.
Audit vendor master data, reconcile ERP to reporting, establish data governance ownership and standards.
Run Pareto analysis — identify top 80% spend vendors, quantify tail, prioritize rationalization.
Audit payment terms, activate discount capture, quantify working capital opportunity.
Update spend authority matrix, clarify decision rights, enforce policy consistently.
Define value metrics, establish baseline, begin tracking cost savings and avoidance.
Implement a value-based measurement framework — savings, avoidance, payment terms, spend under management.
Build central repository, establish expiration tracking, standardize agreement templates.
Define hurdle rates, establish post-investment tracking, apply framework to all operational investments.
Phase 02 — Near-Term
90–270 Days
Restructure governance forums, clarify authority levels, reduce escalation bottlenecks.
Transition from transactional to strategic — category strategy, supplier leverage.
Build category plans for top 5 spend categories. Formalize market intelligence process.
Establish procurement seat at the table — budget, M&A, and strategic planning involvement.
Implement formal supplier tiering — strategic, preferred, approved, tail. Define QBR cadence, meeting structure, and business involvement model for each tier.
Audit lease exposure, benchmark rent, identify consolidation opportunities, build renewal calendar.
Conduct structured workforce review — identify role duplication, rationalize span of control.
Establish joint accountability model — shared forecast ownership, embedded finance partnership.
Move to rolling forecast cadence, introduce driver-based inputs, track forecast accuracy.
Separate growth investment from run-rate cost — establish accountability for growth ROI.
Phase 03 — Structural
270–540 Days
Close adoption gap — training, process alignment, utilization measurement.
Rebuild team for next phase — category expertise, succession planning, strategic capacity.
Build integration playbook, establish procurement M&A protocol, define synergy framework.
Centralize contract ownership, implement renewal management, embed risk review.
Conduct make vs. buy analysis across all outsourced functions, benchmark SLA performance and cost.
Coordinate tax strategy with operational and M&A decisions — entity rationalization, depreciation alignment.
Rebuild asset register, align depreciation schedules to actual useful life, establish refresh cycle discipline.
Risk & Governance
Key Risks Identified
Spend Visibility Gap
Without reliable spend data, cost reduction, supplier rationalization, and working capital initiatives cannot be executed with confidence. This is the highest-priority foundational risk.
Contract & Renewal Exposure
Reactive contract management creates renewal risk, auto-renewal exposure, and missed renegotiation windows. Estimated annual exposure: material but unquantified without contract audit.
Supplier Concentration Risk
High supplier count with low strategic segmentation creates single-source exposure and limits negotiating leverage. Rationalization and tiering are needed before the next budget cycle.
M&A Integration Gap
Procurement is not positioned to support acquisition diligence or integration. Given the organization's growth trajectory, this gap will become critical within 12–18 months.
Value Leakage — Commercial
Payment terms are not actively managed. Discount capture is inconsistent. Working capital optimization is not tracked. Conservative estimate: 1–2% of third-party spend in recoverable value.
Strategic Influence Deficit
Operational leadership is not involved in strategic planning, budgeting, or M&A. This limits the function's ability to drive enterprise value and will constrain scale as the organization grows.
Real Estate & Lease Exposure
Lease renewals are not actively managed. Location redundancy from growth and acquisition has not been rationalized. Facilities cost is likely above market in several locations — unquantified without a lease audit.
Workforce Redundancy & Cost Drag
Role duplication exists across functions. Headcount has accumulated organically without structured review. This creates cost drag and organizational friction that compounds as the business scales.
NDA & Confidentiality Exposure
Confidentiality agreements are not centrally tracked. Expirations are not monitored. The organization cannot confirm which NDAs are active, expired, or in breach — creating legal and commercial exposure.
Finance-Operations Misalignment
Finance and operations are not jointly accountable for outcomes. Forecasting accuracy is low. Growth investment is not separated from run-rate cost. This limits the organization's ability to make confident resource allocation decisions.
Outsourced Services Cost & Performance
Outsourced services are not benchmarked against market rates or evaluated against SLAs on a defined cycle. The organization is likely carrying underperforming or overpriced outsourced relationships without visibility.
Investment ROI Accountability Gap
Post-investment performance is not tracked. Growth spend is not distinguished from run-rate cost. The organization cannot determine which investments are generating returns — limiting capital allocation discipline.
Data Integrity — Foundational Risk
Operational data is not trusted by leadership. Vendor master duplicates, inconsistent spend classification, and ERP-to-reporting reconciliation gaps mean every downstream process — analytics, forecasting, supplier management — is built on an unreliable foundation.
Vendor Categorization Gap
All vendors are managed the same way regardless of spend or criticality. Strategic supplier leverage is not being captured. Tail spend is consuming disproportionate administrative cost. Without formal tiering, procurement effort is misallocated across the entire vendor base.
Spend Concentration Blind Spot
The organization does not know which vendors represent 80% of its spend. Without Pareto visibility, negotiation prioritization, risk management, and supplier rationalization cannot be executed with confidence.
Next Steps
Where Keith Tice Advisory, LLC Can Help
Based on this assessment, the following advisory engagements are most relevant. Engagements are selective and structured to create measurable value — not ongoing retainers without accountability.
Operational Transformation
Structured engagement to close the maturity gap across the highest-priority domains. Governance redesign, process architecture, workforce rationalization, and execution support.
Procurement, Vendor & Data Maturity
Focused engagement on procurement capability, vendor management, data integrity, spend analytics, finance alignment, and investment discipline — the interconnected foundation that determines whether every other initiative succeeds.
M&A, Integration & Risk Readiness
Pre-transaction diligence support, integration playbook development, real estate and workforce rationalization, contract risk reduction, and NDA/legal compliance.
This report is confidential and prepared exclusively for the named organization. Scores and benchmarks are based on information provided during the assessment intake process and Keith Tice’s executive judgment. Peer benchmarks are representative of organizations with similar size and industry profile and are not derived from a statistically validated database.
Keith Tice Advisory, LLC
keithtice.com