ACCOUNT RESEARCH FOR PROCUREMENT AND SPEND-MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE SELLERS

Procurement savings: show the receipt, not a percentage.

Alma Hunter delivers reviewed account/buyer-fit research for procurement and spend-management software sellers. Start with a specific purchase-cost problem and evidence a buyer can verify—not a promised savings rate.

Find my buyers Model the buyer’s ROI

The accounts. The business case. The next move.

ILLUSTRATIVE BUYER-VALUE PATH / NOT LIVE ACTIVITY
  1. 01Verified transaction evidence
  2. 02Year-one cost map
  3. 03Reviewed buyer-fit research
  4. 04Evidence → account report
Fit is a hypothesis.
Evidence supports the next move.
01 / NEXTA plausible account is only the start.

THE PAIN / NOT ANOTHER GENERIC LIST

Savings claims need receipts, not rounding.

Before selling time becomes sunk time, test the obstacles.

Spend leaks hide in plain sight

Fragmented requests, off-contract buying, and duplicate purchases can obscure where purchase costs are actually avoidable.

Software claims outrun evidence

A projected percentage is not proof; buyers need comparable baselines, eligible transactions, and costs counted once.

The platform is not the whole cost

Implementation, integrations, change effort, and recurring fees can outweigh benefits if year-one costs are incomplete.

02 / NEXTThe obstacle becomes a research question.

WHAT ALMA HUNTER DELIVERS

Make the buyer case add up.

  1. 01

    Cost you can defend

    Tie each claimed opportunity to comparable transactions and verified cost differences—not blanket spend-reduction assumptions.

  2. 02

    Visibility with a denominator

    Map transaction volume, approval paths, and contract coverage so the addressable opportunity has clear boundaries.

  3. 03

    Buyer fit, not buyer hype

    Reviewed account/buyer-fit research helps sellers assess relevance before committing resources to an account.

FROM PROFILE TO A SUPPORTED NEXT MOVE
ALMA HUNTER / ACCOUNT REPORT
01Business fitEvidence + unknowns
02Buyer ROIFull cost ↔ realized value
03Technical fitEvidence + unknowns
04IntentEvidence + unknowns
05TimingEvidence + unknowns
06Decision teamEvidence + unknowns
BANTBudget · Authority · Need · Timing
BUDGET UNKNOWNHOLD / VALIDATE

Illustrative qualification, not a researched account. Unknowns stay unknown.

03 / NEXTA better-supported account gives your team something to measure.

THE KPIs / TRACK, DO NOT PROMISE

Better evidence.
Clearer sales decisions.

Metrics to monitor—not guaranteed lifts, meetings or sales.

TRACK 01

Verified-cost coverage

Share of sampled transactions with comparable baselines and documented avoidable cost; define numerator and denominator before testing.

TRACK 02

Eligible transaction count

Count annual purchases meeting documented category, process, and data-quality rules—not total company spend.

TRACK 03

First-year cost completeness

Share of known implementation and recurring cost categories with sourced USD estimates; count each cost once.

04 / NEXTThe buyer still has to win. Test the economics.

THE BUYER’S RETURN FROM YOUR SOLUTION

If the numbers don’t work,
the pitch won’t fix them.

This models your buyer’s return from your solution—not your revenue from buying leads.

YOUR BUYER’S ROI / FICTIONAL INPUTS

Change the inputs. See what the case needs.
Purchase/setup + installation, integration, training and internal implementation.
Recurring fees, energy, maintenance or operations not already included above.
Potential annual units before the realized share below.
Economic unit value. Use the defensible value described below.
How much potential benefit is actually realized; not an assumed success rate.

YEAR ONE / USD / MODEL, NOT A FORECAST

-58.1%Modeled buyer ROI
Full year-one cost$43,000
Gross realized benefit$18,000
Net year-one benefit
-$25,000
Year-one break-even units
1,433.3
Simple upfront payback
No positive payback model

Below year-one break-even. Revisit the case—not the arithmetic.

Illustrative, editable assumptions—not validated results, guarantees or Alma service pricing.

Make the value real.

Fictional USD defaults are examples, not benchmarks or forecasts. Enter only an evidenced avoidable cost per comparable eligible transaction; do not apply an assumed spend-savings percentage. Realized share is the portion of that documented opportunity expected to be captured, not the probability the project succeeds.

See formulas, evidence needed and research context

Gross benefit = potential units × economic unit value × realized share.

Full year-one cost = full upfront deployment + annual operating cost. Net = benefit − full cost. Year-one ROI = net ÷ full cost × 100. Each cost is subtracted once.

Simple upfront payback = upfront cost ÷ (annual benefit − annual operating cost) × 12 months, only if annual net benefit is positive. It assumes steady annual realization, not a discounted cash-flow forecast. Year-one break-even units = full year-one cost ÷ realized unit value.

Validate transaction volume and unit cost from buyer records: compare like-for-like item/specification, quantity, terms, and time period against a documented feasible alternative; exclude unsupported or duplicate claims. Buyer deploys the seller's solution. For year one, cost = upfront + annual ongoing (each counted once); gross benefit = volume × unit value × realized share/100; net = benefit − cost; ROI = net/cost × 100. Replace fictional defaults with buyer-validated USD inputs; results are illustrative, not guaranteed.

These sources explain the economic mechanism and measurement—not Alma Hunter performance:

  • The Investment Case for E-Government Procurement: A Cost–Benefit Analysis — The study describes e-procurement workflow-efficiency and transparency examples, and models procurement-price reductions alongside implementation and operating costs. Its 6.75% average price-reduction assumption is specific to its public-procurement model and is not a general software savings rate; the page therefore uses no assumed savings percentage.
  • Public Procurement in Kazakhstan: E-procurement to strengthen transparency and develop performance evaluation — The OECD describes an e-procurement system spanning procurement-cycle functions and recommends better use of procurement data to monitor supplier and contracting-authority performance. It also documents gaps in functionality and transparency, so capabilities and effects should not be presumed universal.
  • APQC: Transaction amount per purchase order — APQC defines a measurable purchase-order transaction unit and describes procurement-process scope including spend-profile analysis, requisition processing, purchase orders, and supplier performance. Its transaction-amount measure is not itself a measure of avoidable cost or software impact.

FROM THE FOUNDER / NOT A CUSTOMER TESTIMONIAL

Built from the seller’s side.

“Finding companies was never the hard part.”

Scott Hawkyard · Founder, Alma Hunter

A buyer needs a supported business case—not another profile match.

THE NEXT MOVE

Find the buyers.
Bring the case.

Tell us what you sell and who buys it. We agree scope, price and delivery before payment. An inquiry does not start research.

Find my buyers
ALMA HUNTER / YOUR ACCOUNT REPORT
Buyer value.Evidence.Your next move.

Accounts reviewed against your brief.
Unknowns left visible.