Offering 04
Cost, Value and
Vendor Strategy
Cost reduction is only useful if it creates room to grow. Identify wasteful spending and redirect capital toward performance-improving initiatives, without sacrificing what works.
¹ Ratio of documented client value to engagement fee across RLK engagements. Past results are not indicative of future outcomes. Terms.
² Gartner IT cost benchmarks; ISG Sourcing Index: disciplined vendor consolidation and renegotiation recovers 15–40% of addressable spend in typical mid-market engagements.
Who This Is For
You're under pressure to cut. But cutting the wrong things costs more than keeping them.
Most cost reduction exercises produce the wrong outcome. They cut based on line-item size rather than value generated, sacrifice performance-critical spend while preserving legacy commitments, and produce savings that don't stick because the organization doesn't understand what was cut or why.
This engagement is different: we separate what's generating value from what's generating spend without return, and build a reallocation plan that puts freed capital to work.
- CIO / CTO Under Cost PressureAsked to reduce the technology spend envelope while maintaining delivery commitments and protecting the initiatives that matter.
- CFORunning a cost reduction program across the organization and needs the technology function to produce credible, sustainable savings.
- CEO / COO at a Tighter-Margin CompanyOperating with less room than before and needing to find capital for growth initiatives without taking on additional debt.
- PE-Backed LeaderOperating under EBITDA pressure and needing to surface cost savings that are real, defensible, and don't damage the business's medium-term value.
How It Works
Find the waste. Protect the value. Redirect the difference.
Week 1. Map every significant cost category in scope: technology contracts, vendor relationships, headcount, tooling. Classify each against two axes: what it costs and what it produces. Most organizations have never done this at category level.
Weeks 2–3. Separate spending into three buckets: (1) generating performance-critical value, (2) generating some value but not enough to justify the spend, and (3) generating no identifiable business value. The third bucket is almost always larger than leadership expects.
Weeks 3–4. Build the vendor-by-vendor strategy: which relationships should be renegotiated, which should be consolidated, which should be terminated. Develop the negotiation playbook for each: positioning, BATNA, timing, and walk-away criteria.
Week 4–5. Size the savings opportunity at each category, including confidence intervals. Build the timeline for realization: what closes in 90 days, what requires contract cycles, what has structural dependencies.
Week 5–6. Design where the freed capital goes. This is the move most cost programs skip entirely. Cost reduction without reallocation is just shrinking. The plan specifies which initiatives get funded, in what sequence, and with what accountability structure.
What You Bring
Inputs
- Vendor contract list with current spend and renewal dates (we've worked with messy spreadsheets, and this doesn't need to be clean)
- Access to the business owner for each major spend category (finance and operations, not just procurement)
- Current technology and operating cost budget, by category
- Clear guidance on what is and isn't in scope. Some cost categories will be politically sensitive and that's fine to acknowledge upfront.
What You Get
Outputs
Business Case
What rigorous cost discipline typically produces.
"Ryan uncovered savings we never thought possible. Over 8% of our spend went back in our budget, without sacrificing performance." Healthcare client following a Cost, Value and Vendor Strategy engagement. Savings were realized across three vendor renegotiations and one tool consolidation.
Technology services firm under margin pressure. Audit identified $1.7M in spend generating no measurable business value, primarily legacy tooling and a vendor relationship that had outlasted its original purpose. Freed capital was redirected to a product development initiative that hit revenue targets at 9 months.
Logistics company with a complex vendor portfolio across operations and technology. Built negotiation playbooks for 12 contracts. Average reduction of 14% across contracts. Total savings of $2.3M annualized, realized over two contract cycles with no performance impact.
Important Note
Every cost structure is different. The savings percentages and reallocation amounts described here reflect actual client outcomes. Your results will depend on your vendor portfolio, contract timing, organizational complexity, and what's in scope. We build the business case together before the engagement starts, so you know what you're buying before the work begins.
Start the Conversation
Facing a cost reduction mandate or a budget defense?
Tell me the scope and the timeline. We'll build the business case in the first conversation.
Connect with Ryan →