Category Archives: contract management

Ignite Wants to Spark Your Sourcing Success with Actionable Analytics!

the doctor has written about many Spend Analysis vendors over the last decade*, including Ignite Procurement, which is one of the few newer vendors that he expected would soon breakout of their (Nordic) niche and start expanding, something which they are now starting to do having tripled their customer count in the last 6 months to over 200 customers.

The reason for this expectation? They earned their top right status in the Spend Matters Spend Analysis Solution Map when the (quadrant) maps still existed and the doctor was responsible for grading them as a Top 5 Best-of-Breed Mid-Market focussed Spend Analysis player located in Western Europe / the UK.

Founded by ex-BCG (Boston Consulting Group) consultants in 2017, with the first version of the platform launching in 2018, the key players not only have a firm understanding of spend analysis, but what analysis capabilities a customer needs to find their spend waste and their opportunities. Plus, they understood since day one that spend analysis in a vacuum is not that meaningful and is most meaningful in the context of negotiations, supplier management and development, contract obligation management, labour compliance and ESG reporting, for example. Negotiations work best when they are fact based, supplier development efforts are best focussed on those suppliers where improvements would result in considerable cost reductions or value generation, contracts are meaningless if not adhered to (and the resulting overspend completely unnecessary), labour violations in the supply chain can result in huge fines to your organization, and exceeding your carbon caps can be even more expensive (not to mention the fines if you don’t properly report). (And yes, this is a bit of foreshadowing.)

The core of the Ignite “Spend Management” solution is the analytics offering which, like most spend analysis solutions, has two core components:

1. Data Management

It’s very easy to get data into the Ignite Platform. In fact, it can be as easy as dragging-and-dropping a file onto the browser pane as Ignite allows you to define all of your taxonomies as well as your standard file format mappings to those taxonomies. It can then detect if the data is new, incremental, or updated and allow you to add, add only new records, update existing records, or even load the file into an entirely new cube.

When it comes to taxonomies, you can start with your own or built-in and then, during analysis, you can define and redefine taxonomies on the fly, with reclassification as simple as dragging-and-dropping. You can also define and update mapping rules quickly and easily as well, fixing errors or updating classifications as the need arises.

Data enrichment is easy-peasy compared to generic analytic platforms or suites as they support a number of financial metric, industry classification, currency exchanges, commodity intelligence, CO2 emission sources, and risk metric sources out of the box and provide a full integration platform with APIs, pre-built connectors, and timed data pulls (via SFTP, for example) for those who need custom integrations.

The platform also supports multiple tables and spend cubes and allows you to work on global tables and cubes or local tables and cubes for what-if analysis.

But most importantly, it’s one of the few best-of-breed platforms with a fully integrated visual data flow manager where you can define the entire loading, mapping, enrichment, classification, and automated analytics, reporting, and notification process, including automated supplier normalization.

2. Analytics

The Ignite Platform has just about everything you would expect from a modern analytics platform including arbitrary dimension selection, formula-based dimension derivation, easy (powerful metric based) filters, multiple chart and widget types, easy drill down, easy view/report modification, and ad-hoc analytics.

It also comes with a full suite of out-of-the-box analytics to help you identify potential savings opportunities through contracting (off-contract spend), renegotiation, supplier (re) negotiation, supplier benchmark improvements, spend consolidation, invoice management, payment term rationalization, price improvement, etc. Contract coverage, PO Coverage, key supplier coverage, and a suite of KPI reports are also available out-of-the-box (including a spend development dashboard that can go beyond just spend to impacting metrics such as OTD, quality incidents, etc. if you track the data in the supplier management module).

It’s ability to identify supplier-based (re)negotiation and development opportunities is extremely good and based on its proprietary Ignite Matrix that maps “share of wallet” vs EBIT Margin (which it calculates using mandatory government disclosures and integration with appropriate feeds, such as Enin in the Nordics, and appropriate adjustments) and scatter plots the results to help you quickly identify where your business is contributing to a supplier’s high profit margiin (and where the supplier has room to negotiate without jeopardizing its stability).

On top of this they have also built:

3. Supplier Management (Information / Performance / Risk / Compliance)

With its strong data management underpinnings, the Ignite Spend Management platform can store any all supplier related you wish to track and analyze, which not only allows deep spend-related insights by supplier, but performance and risk (metric) insight by supplier, with the ability to track and compare over time.

In addition to providing a full Supplier 360 view across all data captured in the platform, the Supplier Management capability includes standard campaign management where a buyer or supplier management can create questionnaires for supplier data augmentation and collection of relevant data and documents for supplier performance / risk / compliance management.

4. Contract Management (Governance)

Due to its strong data management underpinnings, the platform can also store all relevant contract meta-data in addition to the contract documents and allow users to manage, report on, and automatically annotate spend that is covered by a contract (as well as determine if it was billed, and paid, at the contracted rate using the appropriate payment terms). Also, as with most contract management plays, it can support tasks and alerts and the linking of contracts to tasks and alerts.

5. Scope 3 Management / Carbon Accounting

The best foundation for a carbon calculator / carbon reporting application is a true analytics platform that can support the definition of all of the appropriate Scope 1, 2, and 3 Categories of relevance to the organization and/or required by the appropriate authority to which reports must be made; the integration of data feeds to allow for the appropriate carbon emission calculations; the collection of actual data from suppliers that can supply it; the generation of the appropriate reports with the appropriate calculations for mandated reporting; and the tracking of changes over time. This is precisely what the Ignite Procurement platform supports.

The entire platform is easy to use and the UX is quite modern, but you don’t have to take our word for it — you can see a three minute demo on their webpage … just scroll down to the Meet Ignite Procurement section. So if you’re looking for an analytics platform that can provide you actionable spend insights on your contracts, suppliers, and ESG that you act on to reduce waste and increase value, you should make sure that Ignite Procurement is on your shortlist, especially if you are in its current target marketplace in the EU/UK.

* Not all on SI, many write-ups are on Spend Matters, behind the revised paywall.

The 39 Steps … err … The 39 Clues … err … The 39 Part Series to Help You Figure Out Where to Start with Source-to-Pay

Figuring out where to start is not easy, and often never where the majority of vendors or consultants say you should start. They’ll have great reasons for their recommendations, which will typically be true, but they will be the subset of reasons that most benefits them (as it will sell their solution), and not necessarily the subset of reasons that most benefits you now. While you will likely need every module there is in the long run, you can often only start with one or two, and you need to focus on what’s the greatest ROI now to prove the investment and help you acquire funds to get more capability later, when you are ready for it. But figuring out how much you can handle, what the greatest needs are, and the necessary starting points aren’t easy, and that’s why SI dove into this topic, with arguments and explanations and module overviews, both broader and deeper than any analyst firm or blogger has done before. Enjoy!

Introductory Posts:
Part 1: Where Do You Start?
Part 2: Where Should You Start?
Part 3: You Start with …
Part 4: e-Procurement, and Here’s Why.

Part 5: Defining an e-Procurement Baseline
Part 6: There are Barriers to Selecting an e-Procurement Solution (and they are not what you think)
Part 7: Over 70 e-Procurement Companies to Check Out

Interlude 1
Part 8: What Comes Next?

Spend Analysis
Part 9: Time for Spend Analysis
Part 10: What Do You Need for A Spend Analysis Baseline, I
Part 11: What Do You Need for A Spend Analysis Baseline, II
Part 12: Over 40 Spend Analysis Vendors to Check Out

Interlude 2
Part 13: But I Can’t Touch the Sacred Cows!
(including Over 20 SaaS, 10 Legal, and 5 Marketing Spend Management / Analysis Companies to Check Out)
Part 14: Do Not Stop At Spend Analysis!

Supplier Management
Part 15: Supplier Management is a CORNED QUIP Mash
Part 16: Supplier Management A-Side
Part 17: Supplier Management B-Side
Part 18: Supplier Management C-Side
Part 19: Supplier Management D-Side
Part 20: Over 90 Supplier Management Companies to Check Out

Contract Management
Part 21: Time for Contract Management
Part 22: Contract Management is a NAG: Let’s Start with Negotiation
Part 23: Contract Management is a NAG: Let’s Continue with [Contract]Analytics
Part 24: Contract Management is a NAG: Let’s End with [Contract] Governance
Part 25: Over 80 Contract Management Vendors to Check Out

Part 26: Time for e-Sourcing
Part 27: Breaking Down the ORA of Sourcing Starting With RFX
Part 28: Breaking Down the ORA of Sourcing Continuing with e-Auctions
Part 29: Breaking Down the ORA of Sourcing Ending with [Strategic Sourcing Decision] Optimization
Part 30: Over 75 e-Sourcing Vendors to Check Out!

Invoice-to-Pay (I2P):
Part 31: Time for Invoice-to-Pay
Part 32: Breaking Down the Invoice-to-Pay Core
Part 33: Over 75 Invoice-to-Pay Companies to Check Out

Part 34: How Do I Orchestrate Everything?
Part 35: Do I Intake, Manage, or Orchestrate?
Part 36: Over 20 Intake, [Procurement] [Project] Management, and/or Orchestration Companies to Check Out
Part 37: Investigating Intake By Diving In to the Details
Part 38: Prettying Up the Project with Procurement Project Management
Part 39: Deobfuscating the Orchestration and Fitting it All Together

Source-to-Pay+ is Extensive (P25) … And Contract Management Very Extensive … So Here Are 80 Contract Management Companies to Check Out!

And now the post you’ve all been waiting for! A partial, starting, list of 80 contract management companies that may (or may not) meet some, or many, of the core baseline capabilities we outlined in the last three parts of this series (Part 22, Part 23, and Part 24) as we discussed the Negotiation, Analysis, and Governance sides of Contract Management today. (For those of you who skipped these posts, please note that we define a Contract Analysis solution as one which supports the syntactic, semantic and numeric [spend] analysis of the contracts and that we do NOT include a vendor that focusses [just] on numeric [spend] analysis of the contracts.)

As with our lists of e-Procurement Companies (in Part 7), Spend Analysis Companies (in Part 12), Sacred Cow Companies that do, or support, customized “spend” analysis on Marketing, Legal, and SaaS (in Part 13), and Supplier Management Companies (in Part 20), we must again give our disclaimer that this list is in no-way complete (as no analyst is aware of every company), is only valid as of the date of posting (as companies sometimes go out of business and acquisitions happen all of the time in our space), and does NOT include any document management companies (that could store contracts) in our expository on how Contract Management can be a NAG.

Furthermore, as we’ve said before, not all vendors are equal, and we’d venture to say NONE of the following are equal. The companies below are of all sizes (very small to very large, relative to vendor sizes in our space), cover the baseline differently (in terms of percentage of features offered, the various degrees of depth in the feature implementations, and differing levels of customization for a vertical), offer different additional features, have different types of service offerings (backed up by different expertise), focus on different company sizes, and focus on different technology ecosystems (such as plugging into other platforms/ecosystems, serving as the core platform for certain functions or data, offering a plug-and-play module for a larger ecosystem, focussing on the dominant technology ecosystem(s) in one or more verticals), etc.

Do your research, and reach out to an expert for help if you need it in compiling a starting short list of relevant, comparable, vendors for your organization and its specific needs. For many of these vendors, good starting points can again be found in the Sourcing Innovation archives, Spend Matters Pro, and Gartner Cool Vendor write-ups if any of these sources has a write-up on the vendor.

Company LinkedIn
HQ (State)
Negotiation Analytics Governance
Aavenir 69 Plano, Texas N G
Advanced 2680 United Kingdom G
Agiloft 259 California, USA A G
AnyData Solutions 10 United Kingdom A G
Atamis 40 United Kingdom G
Aufait 114 India G
Bonfire 87 Ontario, Canada G
BrightLeaf 65 Massachusetts, USA A
Brooklyn Solutions 23 United Kingdom G
Cloudia 40 Finland G
Cobblestone Software 131 New Jersey, USA A G
Concord 71 California, USA N G
Conga 1571 Colorado, USA N G
Contract Hound 37 New York, USA G
ContractLogix 32 Massachusetts, USA N G
ContractPodAI 294 United Kingdom N A G
Contract Safe 18 California, USA G
Contracts Wise 2 United Kingdom G
Contracts 365 19 Massachusetts, USA G
Corcentric 588 New Jersey, USA G
Coupa 3674 California, USA N G
datanet 2 Colorado, USA G
Deep Stream 25 United Kingdom G
Delta eSourcing ?? United Kingdom G
DocuSign 7538 San Francisco, USA N A G
ebidToPay ?? Bavaria G
eBrevia (DFIN) 23 New York, USA A
Elcom 18 United Kingdom G
ElectrifAI 132 New Jersey, USA A
Eyvo 24 California, USA G
Evisort 234 California, USA N A G
FullStep 128 Spain G
GateKeeper 103 Illinois, USA G
GEP 4650 New Jersey, USA N G
iCertis 2263 Washington, USA N A G
Ignite Procurement 60 Sweden G
Inconto 9 Netherlands G
Intenda 111 South Africa G
Ion Wave 22 Missouri, USA G
ISPnext 59 Netherlands G
Ivalua 849 Ivalua N G
Jaggaer 1266 North Carolina, USA N A G
Juro 125 United Kingdom N G
Kira Systems 48 Ontario, Canada A
Legal Robot ?? California, United States A
Legal Sifter 31 Pennsylvania, USA A
LGX Corporation ?? North Carolina, USA G
Litera 1104 Illinois, USA A
Malbek 89 New Jersey, United States N G
Market Dojo (Esker) 34 United Kingdom G
MarketPlanet 72 Poland G
Medius 562 Sweden G
Merlin Sourcing 29 Germany G
Oalia 22 France G
Onventis 129 Germany G
OpenGov 603 California, USA N G
ParleyPro 16 California, USA N G
Outlaw 7 New York, USA G
Penny Software 35 Saudi Arabia G
Proactis 557 United Kingdom G
ProcurePort 8 Indianapolis, USA G
ProcureWare (Bentley Systems) 4830 Pennsylvania, USA G
Prokuria 8 Romania G
Raindrop 27 Raindrop G
Ready Contracts 243 Australia G
SafeSourcing 10 Arizona, USA G
SAP (Ariba) 2963 California, USA G
ScanMarket Symfact (Unit4) 60 Denmark G
ScoutRFP 44 California, USA G
SirionLabs 918 California, USA N A G
Sourcing Force 4 Ontario, Canada G
Sourcing Insights 9 Indiana, USA G
SupplyOn 239 Germany N G
Synertrade 180 Germany G
Trade Interchange 27 United Kingdom G
Trakiti 12 United Kingdom N G
Unimarket 77 New Zealand G
Vortal 188 Portugal G
Zycus 1464 New Jersey, USA A G

Come back for Part 26 as we continue our discussion of Source-to-Pay.

Source-to-Pay+ is Extensive (P24) … Time for More Contract “Management”, but it’s a NAG. Let’s end with Governance!

In Part 21 we noted that after Supplier Management came Contract Management because the only way to lock in the opportunity was to get a contract signed on the bottom line. However, like Supplier Management, Contract Management isn’t consistent across vendors because each has a different idea on what Contract Management actually is … and sometimes isn’t. (And most vendors are jumping on the AI bandwagon faster than fleas on the only stray dog in town, but that’s a rant for another day, or week — there’s so much absurdity here.)

However, as noted in our last two posts, Part 22 and Part 23, most of the definitions, and the implemented capabilities, tend to fall into three categories: Negotiation, Analytics, and Governance. Two days ago we started by breaking down negotiation and yesterday we tackled analytics, so that just leaves governance. So today we’ll tackle governance.

Before we continue, we should point out that what we are calling contract governance includes the baseline functionality that many people used to call contract management in the early days, but since

  • the capabilities of contract systems have multiplied and varied significantly since the early days, resulting in the definition of management being too jumbled and nebulous to be useful and
  • management is more than just an electronic filing cabinet, especially when an organization really needs is control of, and by, the contract (which is an archaic definition of governance, by the way)

what we are really talking about here is not nebulous “management” but true contract governance, and a foundation for relational governance as part of an organization’s GRC (Governance, Risk, and Compliance) strategy (but that’s beyond this series).

Finally, please remember that this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of capabilities you may find, or need, but a starting list of capabilities that should be present in any tool you are considering.


indexing and classification w/ full doc management capability
At its foundations, a governance solution must support full document management functionality with deep indexing and classification support for contracts. And that indexing must be customizable to the organization for fast location of contracts by customizable hierarchical indexes, key metadata, filters, and easy searches.

obligation, deliverable, and expiration tracking and management
The entire point of contract governance is ensuring the contract is executed because, while you may want a SaaS solution configuration to be “set and forget”, that’s the last thing you want a contract to be! While you want to trust your supplier, you also want to verify that the obligations are being met, on time and to spec, the billings are done for agreed upon rates, to the payment terms, and any issues are appropriately addressed and adequately resolved within the specified timeframes.

This means that obligations, deliverables, and expirations need to be tracked, their current state maintained at all time, and issues need to be easily surfaced and reported on.

alerting & notifications
In addition to constant monitoring, the platform must also support the definition of custom alerts and notifications, with email/instant messaging support and escalations through channels and notification chains if issues (such as deliverables being late, disputes going unresolved, etc.) are not resolved within a timely fashion.

amendment and addendum management
Few contracts, especially in the project / services category, survive their lifespan without needing at least one amendment (or addendum) as a result of a needed change order, so it’s critical that the solution support amendment and addendum management as well.

equal support for buy-side and sell-side
We really shouldn’t have to say it, but a contract governance system should govern ALL contracts, both buy and sell side. You have obligations, deliverables, terms and conditions on both types of contracts and need to manage, monitor, and report on them both on a regular basis.


dispute resolution
The goal of a good contract negotiation is to end up with a contract that both parties are comfortable with, agree to, and are willing to execute to the dotted i’s and crossed t’s. However, despite the best of intentions, sometimes misunderstandings will arise, and these could lead to disputes. [And sometimes the best of intentions were not in the hearts of all people on one, or both, side(s), and issues are going to arise, and some of these issues are going to turn into disputes.] Disputes need to be resolved, and the process needs to be managed, the communications tracked, and the resolutions and agreements archived in an effort to prevent the disputes from recurring.

asset management
Contracts are for goods or services. Contracts for goods are for goods for use or goods for resale. Goods for use fall into two categories, consumables, which should be managed as inventory, and durables, which are used for execution of the business (like furniture, machinery, electronics, etc.). These durables are typically assets and should be tracked and managed in conjunction with the contracts that governed their acquisition (and their warranty and associated services, etc.). And while there are separate asset management systems, and the organization may prefer to acquire and use one, you still want the link between assets and contracts because, chances are, the asset management system will generally not maintain that link.

project management
Services contracts are generally for the implementation and delivery of projects with multiple phases, deliverables, and obligations, which need to be managed … like a project. While the organization can choose from a multitude of traditional project management solutions to manage the project, the project should not be managed independent of the contract, so a good contract governance solution should contain at least standard project management capabilities.

budget support
The entire point of a contract is to manage spend, and, hopefully, stick to the budget. So while your e-Procurement solution should support, and monitor spend against, the budget, it’s also very, very, useful if the CLM solution can, on a regular basis, import spend and monitor spend against active contracts and show performance against budget for all contracts in a category, for a supplier, etc. so that an organization can see if the contracts are keeping the projects and categories on budget, or not.

event monitoring (re obligations, deliverables & clause triggers)
While you likely have solutions that monitor external events that might impact your suppliers, or your organization in certain geographies (natural disasters, political events, new regulations, modified tax/tariff/custom rates, etc.), how many of these monitor events and identify those that might impact specific contracts? Likely none. That’s why a good governance solution will import this event data from these solutions and associate it with contracts, and then use the alerting and notification capability of the platform to let you know when a contract (obligation and deliverable) might be at risk.

Next up: The Vendor List in Part 25!

Source-to-Pay+ is Extensive (P23) … Time for More Contract “Management”, but it’s a NAG. Let’s continue with Analytics!

In Part 21 we noted that after Supplier Management came Contract Management because the only way to lock in the opportunity was to get a contract signed on the bottom line. However, like Supplier Management, Contract Management isn’t consistent across vendors because each has a different idea on what Contract Management actually is … and sometimes isn’t. (And most vendors are jumping on the AI bandwagon faster than fleas on the only stray dog in town, but that’s a rant for another day, or week — there’s so much absurdity here.)

However, as noted in our last post, Part 22, most of the definitions, and the implemented capabilities, tend to fall into three categories: Negotiation, Analytics, and Governance. Yesterday we started by breaking down negotiation and today we’ll continue with analytics.

Before we begin, we should point out that contract analytics is not contract spend analytics, which in many platforms is merely a summary of spend under contract, but an analysis of the contractual documents of the organization. We will also remind you that this is not meant to be an exhaustive list of capabilities you may find, or need, but a starting list of capabilities that should be present in any tool you are considering.


Clause, obligation, term, deliverable, etc. identification and extraction
The foundation for contract, not contract spend, analytics is the ability to semantically analyze, parse, and extract key pieces of data and metadata on a contract on which to do contract, and contract pool, analysis. An organization wants to know more than just how much contracts contribute to spend under management, but how they contribute to risk mitigation (by ensuring the supplier is responsible to adhering to key governmental requirements), policy compliance (by ensuring there are clauses for mandated diversity programs or industry certifications), insurance, privacy, and other business factors in addition to providing the contracted product (using only approved parts and/or raw materials) or service (using only certified personnel).

While an advanced Negotiation offering will include some of this semantic capability, it may not support anything beyond basic clause identification and not support the necessary meta-data extraction and enrichment necessary for the analytics the organization wants to perform. Significant up-front research and live confirmation of capability (against organizational paper, not demo documents in a vendor system) may be required to verify this.

Search by clause type, obligation type, payment terms, deliverables, etc.
In addition to being able to parse a contract for key meta-data necessary for contract (pool) analysis, the platform must also support extensive search and filter capability on this meta-data. Knowing that 20% of your contracts do not address privacy in a country where a new privacy regulation has just been approved is good, but being able to quickly identify all of the active contracts is better. When an organization needs to assess readiness for a regulation or a risk or revisit their payment policies, they need to be able to quickly figure out what the precise impacts will be, and this will require advanced contract search and filter capability.

Analytics on document/clause/obligation/payment term/deliverable types
As indicated above, its more than just analytics on spend, but analytics on how many different contract types are used in an organization, how common/prevalent a clause is or isn’t, how often a variation is used, the average number of obligations, the OTD (on-time delivery) of those obligations, standard and variant payment terms, the direct and indirect cost of those payment terms and potential cost avoidance from changes to those terms, typical deliverable categories, and how these metrics change over time from one-period to the next. Also, average contract lifespan, renewal rates, decreases in evergreen renewals over time (as these are typically bad — out of sight, out of mind, out of control), and shifts in contracted supply base, geographies, etc. are as important as the spend the contracts control.

Process / state analytics
An organization also needs to understand its overall process and its state of affairs relative to contracts at any time. It’s not just how many contracts are active, but how many are now expired and how many are in process for signing/renewal. What’s the average time from award identification to signing, for implementation, and for conclusion. And how does it vary by category, geography, and supplier and how does that change over time?

It must also allow for the construction of custom summaries (views, widgets, etc.) of any and all analysis each role and stakeholder wants to see when they sign into the system, and must support full drill-down and filter to individual contracts, clauses, and terms as required.

equal support for buy-side and sell-side
Why should you have one system for analyzing buy-side contracts and another for sell side? It’s just as critical to understand revenue, margin, profit, risk, obligation, etc. on the sell-side contracts as well!


Contract Component based spend / supply / supplier analytics
A great contract analytics solution will not only support best-in-class spend analytics capability, but also allow all of the contract meta data to be defined as cube dimensions and used in formulas, filters, and metrics and allow spend to be sliced and diced by contract dimensions — to find out how much spend is covered by an appropriate risk mitigation clause, and how much is not; how much spend is adequately insured and how much is not; how much is tied to performance and may be recoverable as damages for late delivery/project completion; and so on.

Performance analytics & benchmarks
In addition to process/state analytics, the platform should also support performance analytics with respect to overall contract execution and completion timeframes; performance against obligations, payment terms, agreed upon rates and costs; expected demand and utilization; spend to budget; and so on. It should also support the creation of internal benchmarks by year, category, geography, etc. for judging contract performance (over time), and support the importation of external price / rate benchmarks and standard public contracts for relative analysis of organizational performance to the extent possible.

Duplicate / redundant clause analysis and suggested standardization
If you don’t have a contract negotiation platform and all contracts have been created free-form by the legal team, chances are you have more variations of every “standard” clause than you have standard contracts. (Yes, you read that right. Remember, you have expired contracts too that you should be maintaining for 7 to 10 years to backup any spend that you made for financial purposes, as well as maintaining for the length of time any non-compete, warranty, or liability clauses remain valid — so you can easily have more clause variations than you have active contracts when every lawyer uses their own preferred wording of a clause).

Contract risk analysis based on key contract factors
We know that there are separate solutions for “risk” in our space, but most of those solutions are focussed on supplier/supply-chain risk and compute that risk based upon external factors. However, every contract you sign carries risks — risks defined by whatever the contract didn’t cover (and explicitly transfer liability to the supplier for if they violated a regulation or law) and what it does. Your contracts not only explicitly define the products and services you are buying, and the regulations you are subjected to, but your sell-side contracts also define the associated liabilities you are assuming! And a good CLM should support all of your contracts, not just buy-side, even though chances are the sell-side will be initiated by the supplier (and negotiated in their system) and all your system will store is the final contract (which you also want to be able to analyze as well).

Next up: Governance in Part 24!