Procurement key performance indicators: a multiple case study on Brazilian companies

Indicadores-chave de desempenho em compras: um estudo de caso múltiplo em empresas brasileiras

Abstract

Resumo  Este estudo investiga como empresas brasileiras selecionam, monitoram e gerenciam Indicadores-Chave de Desempenho (KPIs) em Compras, analisando em que medida essas métricas refletem uma transição de abordagens orientadas a custos para modelos mais orientados à criação de valor. A pesquisa adota uma abordagem qualitativa exploratória baseada em múltiplos casos, com entrevistas semiestruturadas com profissionais de Compras de sete empresas brasileiras atuantes em diferentes setores, como bancário, saúde, óleo e gás e farmacêutico, entre agosto e setembro de 2024. A análise dos dados foi conduzida por meio de codificação temática. Os resultados identificaram 56 KPIs distintos de Compras, com uma média de oito indicadores por empresa, gerenciados principalmente por meio de ferramentas como Power BI e Excel. Observou-se uma predominância de KPIs orientados a custos, como savings, prazos de pagamento e cobertura contratual, enquanto apenas seis indicadores apresentaram uma orientação clara à criação de valor. Destaca-se ainda a ausência de KPIs relacionados a ESG, desenvolvimento de pessoas ou desempenho de fornecedores. As principais barreiras à adoção de métricas mais estratégicas incluem desafios de integração de dados e qualidade dos dados. Do ponto de vista prático, o estudo oferece referências de benchmarking para gestores e reforça a necessidade de investimentos em governança de dados e capacitação analítica para alinhar Compras a objetivos organizacionais mais amplos e à transformação digital. Teoricamente, os achados desafiam pressupostos de progressão linear nos modelos de maturidade em Compras, evidenciando como fatores contextuais de economias emergentes limitam a adoção de KPIs orientados a valor.

Palavras-chave:
KPIs; Compras; Entrevistas qualitativas; Orientação a custos; Orientação a valor

Resumo

Abstract  This study investigates how Brazilian companies select, monitor, and manage Procurement Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), examining whether these metrics reflect a shift from cost-focused approaches toward more value-oriented performance models. The research adopts an exploratory qualitative multiple-case design, based on semi-structured interviews with procurement professionals from seven Brazilian companies operating in diverse sectors, including banking, healthcare, oil and gas, and pharmaceuticals, between August and September 2024. The data were analyzed using a thematic coding approach. The findings identified 56 distinct procurement KPIs, with an average of eight indicators per company, primarily managed through tools such as PowerBI and Excel. The majority of KPIs remained strongly cost-oriented, focusing on metrics such as savings, payment terms, and contract coverage, whereas only six indicators reflected a value-oriented perspective. Notably, there was a marked absence of KPIs related to ESG performance, talent development, or supplier performance. Key barriers to the adoption of more strategic KPIs included challenges in data integration and a lack of analytical capabilities among procurement professionals. From a practical perspective, this study provides benchmarking insights for managers and highlights the need for greater investment in data governance and analytical training to better align procurement with broader organizational strategies and digital transformation initiatives. Theoretically, the study offers original empirical evidence of the persistent dominance of cost-focused KPIs in Brazilian companies, challenging the assumption of linear progression in procurement maturity models and revealing how contextual factors in emerging economies constrain the diffusion of value-oriented performance measurement.

Keywords:
KPI; Procurement; Qualitative interviews; Cost-focused; Value-oriented

1 Introduction

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) are crucial for assessing organizational success and guiding employees to prioritize tasks and processes that drive business performance (Li et al., 2019). In Procurement, KPIs have historically focused on financial efficiency, particularly cost savings, reflecting a transactional approach to supply management (Brint et al., 2021; Caniato et al., 2014; Ellram & Tate, 2021; Pohl & Förstl, 2011). However, the evolving role of procurement in organizations demands a broader performance perspective that includes dimensions such as innovation, sustainability, risk management, supplier development, and supply chain resilience (Caniato et al., 2014; Cox, 2015; Darom & Plant, 2023).

The literature increasingly advocates for Procurement KPIs to move beyond cost-focused metrics toward value-oriented indicators that support long-term competitiveness and strategic goals (vom Brocke et al., 2008; Monczka et al., 2020; Pennestrì et al., 2019). Studies highlight the need for holistic KPI frameworks that incorporate planning, execution, and monitoring phases (Kusrini et al., 2024) and leverage technological tools, such as business intelligence and artificial intelligence, to improve data analysis and decision-making (Abolbashari et al., 2018; Agrahari & Srivastava, 2019; Caruso et al., 2023).

Despite these advances, there is a notable lack of empirical research examining how Procurement KPIs are selected, implemented, and monitored in the context of Brazilian companies. Most existing studies focus on developed economies, leaving a gap in understanding how organizations in emerging markets, particularly in Brazil, adapt KPI frameworks to their operational realities and institutional challenges. This gap is critical, as organizations operating in Brazil face unique constraints related to technological infrastructure, regulatory complexity, and talent development (CIEC, 2024).

Addressing this gap is essential because, without effective and strategically aligned KPI systems, procurement functions may remain narrowly focused on transactional outcomes, failing to contribute to broader corporate objectives such as ESG compliance, supplier innovation, and operational resilience (Caruso et al., 2023; Darom & Plant, 2023; Marzuqi & Abma, 2024). Furthermore, the absence of standardized KPI frameworks tailored to the Brazilian context limits both the advancement of academic knowledge and practitioners’ ability to benchmark and improve their practices.

Given this scenario, the central research question guiding this study is as follows: How do Brazilian companies select, monitor, and manage Procurement KPIs, and to what extent do these reflect a strategic shift from cost-focused to value-oriented performance models?

To answer this question, this research adopts a qualitative approach based on semistructured interviews (Adeoye-Olatunde & Olenik, 2021; Stuart et al., 2002; Yin, 2015) with procurement professionals from seven companies across diverse sectors, including banking, healthcare, oil and gas, pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and manufacturing. Given the qualitative and exploratory nature of this multiple case study, the findings are intended to provide in depth, context-specific insights rather than statistically generalizable conclusions.

This study empirically demonstrates that, despite academic advocacy for value-oriented KPIs, Procurement functions in Brazilian companies largely remain tethered to cost-focused metrics, revealing a significant practical-theoretical gap driven by unique contextual factors and challenging the linear progression often assumed in procurement maturity models.

Despite the growing academic consensus advocating for a strategic shift toward value-oriented Procurement KPIs, incorporating aspects such as sustainability, innovation, and supplier development, our preliminary observations suggest that their practical application, particularly within emerging markets such as Brazil, presents a nuanced and often contrasting reality. While the global literature often assumes a progressive adoption of more strategic metrics as procurement functions mature, this study empirically demonstrates a significant divergence: procurement practices in Brazilian companies remain predominantly anchored in cost-focused indicators. This finding not only highlights a critical gap between theoretical frameworks and real-world implementation but also suggests that contextual factors, such as regulatory complexity and economic volatility inherent to the Brazilian landscape, significantly mediate the adoption of advanced KPI systems, thereby challenging the universality of procurement maturity models.

The contributions of this study are both theoretical and practical. Theoretically, it extends the literature on procurement performance measurement by providing empirical insights from an under researched context, helping to bridge the gap between cost-focused KPIs and emerging value-oriented metrics (Caniato et al., 2014; Darom & Plant, 2023). Practically, the study offers a detailed benchmarking of the KPIs currently used in Brazilian Procurement functions, highlighting key barriers such as data integration challenges and master data quality. These insights can guide organizations in refining their KPI strategies, promoting digital transformation, and enhancing procurement’s alignment with corporate goals.

The next section presents a literature review of Procurement KPIs. The methodology outlines a qualitative research approach based on semistructured interviews. The results discuss the key findings and categorize the commonly used KPIs and barriers. The conclusion summarizes the insights, practical implications, and future research directions.

2 Literature background

KPIs are foundational instruments in organizational management, as they assess critical aspects of performance that influence enterprises' current and long-term success (Parmenter, 2019). In the context of Procurement, KPIs should not only aim to minimize costs but also reflect strategic dimensions that ensure supply chain resilience and robustness (Darom & Plant, 2023). As such, the procurement function must be integrated with broader organizational strategies.

Traditionally, procurement performance metrics have been associated with cost, quality, and operational efficiency (Banelienė, 2021). However, there is an increasing consensus in the literature that monitoring inventory and ensuring continuous supply flows are equally vital to the seamless operation of businesses (Banelienė, 2021). Furthermore, the development of artificial intelligence (AI)-based tools has emerged as a key enabler of enhancing KPI management in the public sector, contributing to greater efficiency and transparency in procurement processes (Caruso et al., 2023).

Numerous studies have discussed the necessity of a unified framework to manage procurement KPIs. Scholars stress the importance of consolidating various indicators under the responsibility of the procurement function to provide a comprehensive performance perspective and facilitate strategic decision-making (Abolbashari et al., 2018). Techniques such as variance sharing (a method for distributing performance discrepancies across functions or units) have also been proposed to improve the accuracy of performance assessment (Nabhani et al., 2018).

As managerial practices evolve, factors such as flexibility, innovation, and sustainability have become increasingly central to evaluating procurement performance (Caniato et al., 2014). In this context, tools based on information technology have been developed to optimize process and KPI management, allowing for improved control and operational optimization (Agrahari & Srivastava, 2019). Recent studies in the Brazilian context highlight how technological adoption, such as robotic process automation, contributes to improving productivity, process quality, and decision-making in procurement, reinforcing its strategic role within organizations (Picoli & Bin, 2025).

In the sphere of supplier management, Duarte et al. (2024) emphasize the relevance of indicators such as quality, on-time delivery, reliability, customer service, process capability, safety, cost, and communication. This multifaceted approach reveals the need for balanced performance measurement systems that transcend mere cost savings. Indeed, research indicates that the five most important nonfinancial procurement indicators are cycle time, procurement plan effectiveness, alignment with customer requirements, reliability of cycle times, and internal customer satisfaction. These findings reinforce the argument for adopting a more holistic approach to procurement performance measurement (Darom & Plant, 2023).

The importance of indicators related to resilience and risk has been increasingly emphasized in recent studies, particularly in the context of crises. Building on these perspectives, Lima et al. (2026) argue that the pandemic has exposed significant vulnerabilities in global supply chains, highlighting the need for KPIs that capture supply continuity, supplier reliability, and contingency preparedness.

In parallel, Kusrini et al. (2024) proposed a comprehensive KPI framework that evaluates procurement performance across three dimensions: planning, execution, and monitoring. The identification of 41 KPIs within these categories highlights the increasing complexity of procurement performance management and the pressing need for structured approaches to ensure both efficiency and effectiveness.

Considering this context, implementing performance measurement systems that incorporate an integrated and strategic perspective on KPIs is crucial for the procurement function to meaningfully contribute to organizational objectives (Caniato et al., 2014; Darom & Plant, 2023). The ongoing development of professionals, methodologies, and tools for measuring and monitoring these indicators will play a critical role in advancing the field in the future. Table 1 presents the KPIs identified in the recent literature.

Table 1
Consolidated KPIs from the literature.

Author	KPI
Darom & Plant (2023)	Cost savings; Cost benefit (cost savings + cost avoidance); Cost avoidance; % of competitive bidding versus sole source bidding (%); Average $ value of commitment per contracting representative / FY; Managed spend per fiscal year ($); Division’s operating cost (annual); % of annual (FY) contractual commitment growth compared to the previous FY; % of spend on LFC vs. % of spend on SFC/SCC; Cost benefit / division’s operating cost; Number of transactions over $1M during the fiscal year; Internal customer satisfaction % – SERVQUAL; The customer query time; Service level compared to other divisions; Flexibility; Cycle time; Effectiveness of Procurement plans; Reliability of cycle time; Usability of Procurement tools; % of contractors that are evaluated at least twice a year; Clarity of processes and procedures; Number of claims/contractual disputes per FY; Ratio of completed contracts during the fiscal year to the number of staff; Number of signed contracts using the contractor’s template or using a KAUST template with significant changes; Effective reflection of customer requirements into contracts; Employee satisfaction; Employee turnover per year; % of qualified personnel within the team; Number of suggestions implemented per employee yearly
Duarte et al. (2024)	Quality; Delivery; Reliability; Customer support; Process Capacity; Product conformity; Safety; Costs; Ease of Communication; Efficacy of corrective action; On-time rate; Costs; Ease of Communication; Process Capacity; Performance history; Delivery; Price; Reliability; Quality; On-time rate; Safety; Customer support
Kusrini et al. (2024)	Clearly define the project’s scope and specifications; Make sure that you have obtained the necessary approvals internally and/or externally; Documentation Accuracy; Budgetability; Market research intensity; Find out complete information on the production of purchased goods; Average time related to supply source identification; Average time for market research costs; Prepare tenders in compliance with national regulations; Prepare contract; Prepare tender questionnaire; Establish KPIs and define evaluation criteria; Establish Sourcing Plans Cycle Time; Document quality determination; Determine the price of goods, work packages, specifications and quality of goods, and delivery times; Ensure secure, transparent, and fair tender document publication and exchange; Transparent communication; Increasing Customer Satisfaction / feedback; Establish a team for the evaluation and assessment of tenders; Conduct the shortlisting process; Analyze tender documents received against KPIs and set criteria; Undertake negotiation; Propose recommendations; Selection of suppliers and cycle time negotiation; Complying with the Quality Criteria; Negotiate quality standards with suppliers; The best price agreement for suppliers and companies; Supplier meeting environmental metric criteria with an EMS or ISO 14001; Award and sign-off contract; Build supplier and supply chain relationships; Maintain trust and communication with suppliers; Maintain ongoing collaboration with suppliers; Transparent communication; Implement a contract adherence monitoring system; Put in place risk mitigation plan; % order with correct order content; % of materials that are recyclable/Reusable; % hazardous material in inventory; % of orders received at the right rate; % Orders/Lines Received Defect Free; % Product Transferred Without Transaction Errors.

• Source: Adapted from Kusrini et al. (2024), Duarte et al. (2024), and Darom & Plant (2023).

The Procurement department must identify the most appropriate performance metrics, define the optimal frequency for monitoring, and determine the managerial responses to different scores and emerging trends (Jones & Barner, 2014). A significant contribution to this discussion is the concept of the measurement controlling process proposed by Schiele (2007). This structured framework governs the control and supervision of performance metrics and KPI-related activities and comprises four maturity levels:

• At maturity level 1, relevant performance metrics are rarely monitored;

• At maturity level 2, metrics are monitored regularly, although they are not yet fully integrated into management routines;

• At maturity level 3, monitoring is systematic and primarily focuses on the degree of implementation of relevant processes or their equivalents;

• At maturity level 4, the most advanced stage, all relevant performance metrics are systematically tracked on the basis of their actual impact on business outcomes, and their implementation is actively supervised by the management of the respective business units.

This maturity model emphasizes the importance of transitioning from simple metric tracking to a performance management system that is integrated, strategic, and aligned with organizational objectives.

The literature suggests a growing divide between cost-focused and value-oriented approaches to procurement performance measurement. Table 2 synthesizes this transition, highlighting the key conceptual differences and references that inform our empirical analysis.

Table 2
The transition between cost-focused and value-oriented Procurement KPIs.

Dimension	Cost-focused KPI Approach	Strategic/Value-Oriented KPI Approach	Key Authors
Primary Focus	Cost savings, price, payment terms	Value creation, innovation, ESG, risk, supplier development	Darom & Plant (2023), Ellram & Tate (2021), Pohl & Förstl (2011)
Performance Scope	Operational and transactional efficiency	Holistic view (planning, execution, monitoring)	Caniato et al. (2014), Kusrini et al. (2024)
KPI Examples	% cost reduction, PO cycle time, compliance with budgets, % Spend spot and within contract	GHG emissions, supplier diversity, innovation contribution, TCO, Number of ESG Initiatives Monitored at Suppliers	Caruso et al. (2023), Duarte et al. (2024), Georgino et al. (2025)
Data Characteristics	Historical, descriptive, isolated	Integrated, predictive, strategic	Abolbashari et al. (2018), Agrahari & Srivastava (2019)
System Support	Excel, manual tracking	BI, AI-enabled dashboards, real-time monitoring	Caruso et al. (2023)
Organizational Alignment	Disconnected from corporate goals	Aligned with business strategy, ESG agenda	Cox (2015), Darom & Plant (2023)
Procurement Maturity	Level 1 and 2: KPI tracking is ad hoc or routine	Level 3 and 4: KPI use is strategic and supervised by management	Schiele (2007)

• Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of empirical research findings.

To assess the maturity and effectiveness of Procurement KPI systems, we draw on several theoretical criteria. Parmenter (2019) and Pohl & Förstl (2011) emphasized the importance of clarity, relevance, and measurability in KPI design. In addition, scholars such as Caniato et al. (2014) and Cox (2015) argue that KPIs should align with strategic objectives beyond cost reduction, including sustainability, innovation, and supply chain resilience. Finally, the integration of KPIs into broader information systems and performance management cycles is essential for organizational learning and adaptation (Abolbashari et al., 2018; Caruso et al., 2023). Schiele’s (2007) maturity model offers a four-level framework on the basis of how systematically KPIs are used and integrated into decision-making. These criteria inform both our interview protocol and analytical lens.

3 Methodology

This research adopts an exploratory qualitative approach using multiple cases, justified by the need to deepen the understanding of how Procurement KPIs are selected, monitored, and managed in the Brazilian context. Given the scarcity of empirical studies on this subject in Brazil, particularly regarding the operationalization of KPI frameworks in procurement, a qualitative strategy is appropriate for capturing the complexity and context-specific nuances of organizational practices (Easterby-Smith et al., 2026; Saunders et al., 2019).

The empirical approach adopted in this research consisted of semistructured interviews, following the methodological recommendations of Stuart et al. (2002) and Yin (2015). This approach is particularly suited to exploring the phenomenon in depth while maintaining sufficient flexibility to uncover new insights (Easterby-Smith et al., 2026; Saunders et al., 2019). As noted by Adeoye-Olatunde & Olenik (2021), semistructured interviews are ideal when the objective is to access the unique perspectives of participants rather than to generalize findings. This method allows the research to stay aligned with its objectives via a structured interview guide while providing room to delve into emerging themes during the conversation. Moreover, argumentative and discursive interviews are considered the most appropriate research strategy for expert interviews with a thematic focus (Trinczek, 2009).

The study was conducted with members of the Centro Internacional de Estudos em Compras (CIEC), a Brazilian professional network specializing in Purchasing and Supply Management. This choice ensured access to experienced professionals actively involved in Procurement KPI management across diverse industries.

The selection of participating companies followed a purposive sampling strategy, aiming to capture variations in industry context, organizational size, and procurement maturity levels. Companies were selected on the basis of their active engagement in KPI management practices and willingness to provide detailed insights into their internal processes. The use of the CIEC network facilitated access to knowledgeable and experienced informants actively involved in KPI management while ensuring relevance to the research question.

The sample consists of seven companies from various sectors including banking, oil and gas, healthcare, pharmaceutical, chemical, and manufacturing, with annual revenues ranging from USD 28 million to over USD 100 billion. This diversity supports the goal of capturing a broad spectrum of procurement practices and maturity levels, enhancing the robustness of the findings without aiming for statistical generalization (Stuart et al., 2002; Yin, 2015).

Theoretical saturation was reached after the seventh case, as additional interviews did not yield substantially new KPI categories, practices, or barriers. Instead, the data began to show convergence across cases, particularly regarding the predominance of cost-focused indicators, the limited presence of value-oriented KPIs, and the recurring challenges related to data integration and analytical capabilities. Data collection and analysis were conducted iteratively, allowing emerging insights to inform the subsequent interviews. This pattern of diminishing returns is consistent with prior qualitative research suggesting that theoretical saturation can be achieved with a relatively small number of interviews, particularly in studies with a focused scope and expert participants (Guest et al., 2006).

Table 3 presents detailed profiles of the participating companies, including their procurement spend, organizational size, number of active suppliers, and procurement maturity levels. Procurement maturity levels were obtained through a self-assessment conducted by the interviewees, based on Schiele’s (2007) framework. During the interviews, the respondents were presented with the four maturity levels and their respective definitions and were asked to position their organizations accordingly. This procedure ensured consistency in classification while capturing respondents’ informed perceptions of their organization’s maturity level. This level of contextualization allows for transparency regarding the field boundaries and enhances the transferability of the results.

Table 3
Profile of the participating companies.

Company	A	B	C	D	E	F	G
Procurement Spend (2023, in USD million)	669	28,257	340	583	561	12	18
Responsible for KPI Data Collection and Organization	N/A	Automated systems and analysts	BI analyst (Procurement dept.)	Automated, self-managed	Partially automated for coded items; the governance team processes the rest	Procurement manager	Procurement manager
Annual KPI Definition Authority	Executive Board and Mgmt.	Executive Board (managerial breakdowns)	Defined by committee	Board of Directors	Procurement Executive Board	Executive Board and Mgmt.	Purchasing Global Director and Local Manager
Number of Procurement Employees	250	1.200	23	175	115	7	7
Total Number of Employees	86,000	46,730	70,000	700,000	20,000+	150	100
Number of Active Suppliers	4,000+	3,092	3,000	21,000	3,400+	2,000	400
Procurement Maturity Level	3	4	2	3	3	2	3
Revenue (2023, in USD million)	50,701	102,605	1,940	1,596	1,082	28	<40
Industry Sector	Banking	Oil and Gas	Healthcare	Pharmaceuticals	Healthcare	Manufacturing	Chemical

• Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of the empirical research profile. N/A = Not Applicable.

Data were collected between August and September 2024. Each interview lasted between 40 and 60 minutes, following a standardized interview guide (Appendix 1) designed to address: (1) KPI selection processes; (2) monitoring frequency and tools; (3) responsibility for data collection and analysis; (4) KPI revision practices; (5) barriers to effective KPI management; and (6) perceived maturity of procurement KPI systems.

All interviews were audio-recorded with consent and transcribed for analysis. To increase data richness and validity, the interviews were supplemented with secondary materials such as internal documents, organizational charts, and KPI dashboards when available. Researchers have also maintained detailed field notes that capture contextual observations, nuances, and nonverbal cues (Bernard, 2002). This multisource strategy strengthens the reliability and credibility of the findings, mitigating researcher bias and guarding against overgeneralization (Saunders et al., 2019; Voss et al., 2016).

Data analysis followed a thematic coding approach (Saunders et al., 2019), supported by qualitative analysis to organize and cross-reference codes. Prior to coding, a data preparation step was conducted to standardize the KPI terminology across companies. Given the heterogeneity in how organizations label similar metrics, the KPIs were carefully reviewed and harmonized to ensure conceptual equivalence (e.g., different labels referring to payment terms or service level agreements were consolidated under a common definition). After this harmonization process, all the KPIs were translated into English.

The coding process combines deductive and inductive approaches (Fife & Gossner, 2024). Initially, the KPIs were coded into 14 first-order codes, representing specific performance metrics identified across cases. These were subsequently grouped into five second-order categories corresponding to sub-sub-processes based on the framework proposed by Kusrini et al. (2024). Finally, these categories were aggregated into two third-order dimensions, reflecting broader procurement sub-processes, as presented in Table 4. This hierarchical coding structure enabled the systematic organization of empirical findings while preserving alignment with established theoretical frameworks.

Table 4
Mapped KPIs per sub-sub-process proposed by Kusrini et al. (2024).

Classification by Kusrini et al. (2024)		KPIs identified per company
Sub-process	Sub-sub-process	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	Total
Procurement Execution	Contract			Contract Coverage		Contract Coverage			2
	Prepare Tender	Registered Pricelists							1
	Short-listing and Negotiation	Payment Terms; Savings	Savings	Payment Terms; Savings (2x)	Payment Terms; Savings (3x); ESG	Payment Terms; Savings	Savings (6x)	Savings (3x)	22
	Publish and Receive Tender	Customer Satisfaction SLA							1
Performance Monitoring	Performance Monitoring	Purchasing SLA (2x); Infrastructure SLA; Leadtimes SLA (2x); Customer Satisfaction SLA; Risk Mgmt	Purchasing SLA (4x)	Customer Satisfaction SLA	Spend (2x); ESG	Leadtimes SLA; Purchasing SLA; Spend	Spend (2x); Obsolete Inventory (2x); Raw Material Shortage; Risk Mgmt;	Spend; Delivery SLA; Risk Mgmt (4x)	30
	Total	11	5	5	8	6	12	9	56

• Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of empirical research findings. Note. Some companies employ multiple savings-related KPIs, which explains why they may report “savings (6x),” for example. To illustrate, one such company employs various types of savings-related KPIs, including the percentage of savings relative to cash flow (% Saving/Cash Flow), the percentage of savings relative to purchasing department costs (% Saving/Purchasing Department Costs), the percentage of savings relative to purchased volumes (% Saving/Purchased Volumes), a comparison of freight bids versus actual import spend (% Saving/Freight BIDs vs Spend raw material imported), the percentage of savings relative to EBITDA (% Saving/EBITDA), and the percentage of savings relative to the raw material budget (% Saving/Budget Raw Material).

In parallel, additional thematic codes were developed to capture cross-cutting dimensions, such as barriers to KPI implementation and governance practices. The coding structure was iteratively refined through constant comparison across cases, ensuring internal consistency and alignment with both empirical data and theoretical constructs.

To enhance analytical rigor, coding decisions were systematically reviewed by the researchers, and discrepancies were discussed until a consensus was reached. This process, combined with data triangulation using secondary materials, contributed to the reliability and transparency of the analysis. This approach ensured consistency in the coding and strengthened the robustness of the findings.

4 Results and discussion

This section presents the empirical findings from the semistructured interviews conducted with procurement professionals in seven Brazilian companies across diverse sectors. The data are structured around three main dimensions aligned with the research objectives: (i) KPIs in use, (ii) barriers to KPI implementation, and (iii) cost-focused versus value-oriented KPIs.

4.1 KPIs in use

The research identified a total of 56 distinct Procurement KPIs, with the number of indicators per company ranging from 5 to 12 and an average of 8 KPIs per organization. Most companies rely on PowerBI for data visualization, frequently in combination with Excel or proprietary systems. Monitoring is typically conducted monthly; however, some indicators are updated weekly or quarterly, depending on internal routines. Performance measurement emerges as a critical component in this context, serving as a benchmark for enhancing the effectiveness and efficiency of procurement operations (Kusrini et al., 2024). Table 4 presents a consolidated list of all the KPIs identified in the case studies, cross-referenced with the participating companies. The KPIs are organized according to the procurement sub-sub-processes outlined in the framework developed by Kusrini et al. (2024), enabling a structured and process-oriented categorization of performance indicators. SLA in some KPIs refers to service-level agreement.

To complement the detailed mapping presented in Table 4, Figure 1 provides a visual representation of the distribution of KPIs across companies and procurement sub-sub-processes.

Figure 1
Distribution of KPIs across companies and procurement sub-sub-processes. Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of empirical research findings.

Figures 1 and 2 jointly illustrate the distribution of KPIs across procurement sub-sub-processes, according to Kusrini et al. (2024), revealing a consistent concentration of performance monitoring and short-listing and negotiation activities, whereas other sub-processes remain comparatively underrepresented. This pattern reinforces the predominance of operational and cost-focused metrics across companies. Although a limited number of noncost-oriented KPIs have been identified, such as those related to risk management, service levels, and ESG, these indicators remain marginal and are not embedded within a broader value-oriented performance logic.

Figure 2
Distribution of Procurement KPIs across sub-sub-processes. Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of empirical research findings and the sub-sub-processing by Kusrini et al. (2024).

The findings of the present study partially diverge from those reported in the literature. For instance, Schiele (2007) posits that at maturity level 4, key performance indicators (KPIs) are fully integrated into the corporate strategy. Similarly, prior research suggests that as procurement maturity increases, organizations tend to adopt more strategic rather than operational KPIs (Georgino et al., 2025). However, the empirical evidence from this study indicates that such alignment is not consistently observed in practice.

For example, companies B and E reported the systematic use and regular monitoring of KPIs, with targets often defined on the basis of historical data or periodic reviews, but without clear evidence of integration with a broader organizational strategy. Similarly, Company G demonstrated structured KPI definition processes driven by budget cycles or financial targets, reinforcing a predominantly operational and cost-oriented approach. Even in B, where higher maturity levels are observed, the KPI definition remains largely driven by top management alignment and regulatory requirements rather than a fully embedded strategic performance framework.

Some convergence is observed at maturity levels 2 and 3, where most of the participating Brazilian companies are positioned. At these levels, KPIs are systematically monitored but not yet fully integrated into strategic planning or decision-making processes. This suggests that the transition from operational to strategic KPI systems, as proposed in maturity models, remains more gradual and context-dependent than previously assumed.

Nonetheless, our findings reveal that even when KPI systems reach a procedural maturity consistent with Level 3, this does not necessarily ensure strategic alignment, especially in environments where cost-focused metrics are prioritized or where digital infrastructure remains fragmented. While Darom and Plant (2023) underscore the gradual adoption of value-oriented indicators as procurement functions mature (namely, the importance of metrics that extend beyond cost-focused measures and are oriented toward future value and strategic outcomes), our empirical results indicate that such evolution is not unfolding organically in the Brazilian context. Even in companies with comparatively advanced governance frameworks and automated systems, value-oriented KPIs (e.g., those related to sustainability or talent development) remain uncommon.

As illustrated in Table 4, savings emerged as the most frequently used KPI among the companies. This metric is also extensively referenced in the academic literature (Brint et al., 2021; Caniato et al., 2014; Ellram & Tate, 2021; Pohl & Förstl, 2011), largely because of its direct impact on financial indicators such as Economic Value Added (EVA), inventory value, profit margins, cash flows, and the cash conversion cycle (Ellram & Liu, 2002; Georgino et al., 2024).

However, both the literature and empirical observations reveal that there is no universally accepted definition of "savings." In practice, this concept varies across companies (Berggren & Matti, 2021). The savings-related KPIs identified in interviews include the following:

1. Percentage deviation between budgeted, projected, and actual expenditures;

2. Comparison of previous year spend vs. the current year spend;

3. Difference between initial supplier quotes and final negotiated prices;

4. Reduction in import freight costs;

5. Cost reduction in recurring purchases compared with the last price paid;

6. Cost breakdown analysis based on a price index;

7. The difference between the final contracted value and the reference value;

8. Amount paid relative to a historical baseline.

Another relevant empirical finding concerns the SLAs related to KPIs. The literature highlights several advantages of SLAs, including expectation alignment, increased transparency, clearly defined contractual responsibilities, and improved communication between parties (Nicolazzo et al., 2026; Swain & Garza, 2023). SLAs contribute to standardizing service delivery, increasing predictability, and optimizing resource use, and are considered critical tools for contract governance and strengthening buyer-supplier relationships (Wu et al., 2012). Moreover, SLAs support continuous improvement, drive operational excellence, reduce uncertainties, and enhance supply chain resilience (Tan et al., 2022).

Practical examples of SLA-related KPIs in Procurement include delivery time, the issue resolution rate, compliance levels, and supply quality (Tan et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2012). To address SLA-related challenges, the authors recommend actions such as multidisciplinary collaboration in agreement design, team training, strategic alignment with suppliers, and structured, periodic review processes (Swain & Garza, 2023; Tan et al., 2022). Finally, to ensure compliance with the agreed-upon terms, it is essential to define penalty and reward mechanisms, which reinforce supplier accountability and foster continuous performance improvement (Nicolazzo et al., 2026).

Risk management KPIs were also identified across several cases, reflecting the increasing importance of monitoring supply chain performance under uncertainty. These indicators support decision-making and enhance organizational resilience by improving visibility over potential disruptions (Gupta et al., 2019; Karl et al., 2018).

On the other hand, certain KPIs were rarely mentioned or absent from the interviews. One such area is supplier management. As Lysons & Farrington (2020) noted, standard supplier evaluation KPIs usually include price, quality, and delivery performance.

Another underrepresented category was ESG (Environmental, Social, and Governance). A survey (GEP, 2024) revealed that 73% of procurement leaders recognize their role in driving sustainability. However, only two ESG-related KPIs were identified in our study: one concerning greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions within the supply chain (reported by a pharmaceutical company) and another focused on supplier diversity (also from the pharmaceutical sector). International studies similarly indicate that the adoption of more strategic procurement practices, such as embedding sustainability requirements, depends on the presence of appropriate contractual structures. Gelderman et al. (2024) emphasize that contractual flexibility plays a crucial role in enabling sustainability outcomes, implying that KPIs related to contract management can be effective mechanisms for integrating ESG considerations into procurement performance systems. Together, these insights suggest that expanding ESG‑related KPIs may require greater attention to contract design and monitoring, enabling procurement teams to translate sustainability ambitions into measurable performance.

Furthermore, no KPIs related to talent development or team performance were reported. According to Stek & Schiele (2021), professional skills can and should be measured, monitored, and managed through KPIs. This study identified 15 key competencies in procurement, including networking, results orientation, negotiation, contracting, data analysis, and big data capabilities. Moreover, soft skills, such as creativity, networking, and sales ability, are essential enablers for developing technical expertise. Talent management has been shown to have a significant effect on both procurement and overall firm performance (Foerstl et al., 2015).

However, despite this growing academic consensus advocating for a strategic shift toward value-oriented metrics, there remains a critical gap in the empirical understanding of whether these theoretical advancements translate into practical adoption, particularly within emerging economies. While the literature often posits a linear progression toward more strategic and integrated KPI systems as procurement functions mature, preliminary observations suggest that the operational realities in countries such as Brazil may present a nuanced, and at times contrasting, picture. This study aims to investigate this potential divergence, exploring whether Procurement in Brazilian companies still predominantly anchors its performance measurement in cost-focused indicators, and how unique contextual factors might influence the adoption (or lack thereof) of a broader, value-oriented approach, thereby challenging the universality of procurement maturity models and their implicit assumption of a linear progression toward strategic, value-oriented performance measurement.

The predominance of cost-focused KPIs, with “savings” emerging as the most widely used metric among companies (Table 4), illustrates the persistence of transactional logic in the evaluation of Brazilian Procurement practices. This emphasis is consistent with the literature that underscores the importance of savings for immediate financial indicators, as well as the tendency for procurement functions to be assessed according to the criteria of internal stakeholders who prioritize cost considerations (Caniato et al., 2014; Pohl & Förstl, 2011). However, the near absence of strategic value metrics (such as ESG-related indicators or talent development) suggests that, even at intermediate maturity levels (levels 2 and 3 in Schiele’s framework), Brazilian companies continue to prioritize operational compliance and short-term financial outcomes.

Although cost-focused KPIs predominate, some indicators, such as those related to risk management, service levels, and ESG, already signal early value creation, contributing to resilience, compliance, and operational continuity, even though they are not yet fully integrated into a value-oriented framework.

4.2 Barriers to KPI implementation

The interviewees highlighted several challenges in establishing and maintaining KPI systems. The most frequently cited barrier was data integration, particularly the difficulty in consolidating data from multiple sources and correcting master data inconsistencies. The second major challenge was the lack of skills among buyers to interpret dashboards and translate data into actionable strategies. Second, the CIEC (2024) reported that 40% of procurement professionals cited the lack of available talent with the right analytical profile as a key barrier to advancing procurement analytics in their organizations. Stek & Schiele (2021) similarly emphasized that soft and analytical skills are prerequisites for effective KPI management in complex procurement environments. As such, improving the analytical capabilities of procurement teams is a pressing priority for Brazilian firms.

Figure 3 summarizes the main barriers identified across the cases to provide a structured overview of these findings.

Figure 3
Main barriers to Procurement KPI implementation across cases. Source: Developed by the authors on the basis of empirical research findings.

These findings indicate that technological constraints, particularly those related to data integration and master data quality, constitute the most recurrent barriers to effective KPI management. These challenges are further compounded by infrastructural limitations, as several companies still rely on manual processes or fragmented data systems, which hinder real-time monitoring and advanced analytics. This is consistent with Caruso et al. (2023), who argue that the adoption of strategic KPIs is often contingent on the availability of integrated business intelligence tools and data governance structures. Although less frequently mentioned, regulatory constraints also emerge as relevant, particularly in highly regulated sectors, where compliance requirements restrict the design and flexibility of performance measurement systems.

These findings concerning barriers support our argument regarding the practical-theoretical gap and challenges in the Brazilian context.

4.3 Cost-focused vs. value-oriented KPIs

A cost-focused approach to supply and process management emphasizes short-term savings, often prioritizing single-unit cost reductions and immediate financial efficiency. This perspective is typically limited to minimizing expenditures without necessarily considering broader organizational impacts or long-term implications (Monczka et al., 2011; Pennestrì et al., 2019). In contrast, a value-oriented approach, also referred to as value-focused supply, shifts the emphasis from cost containment to the creation of long-term value, aligning procurement and supply strategies with broader business objectives and sustainable outcomes (Monczka et al., 2011). This approach integrates stakeholder perspectives and supports comprehensive performance evaluation, ultimately aiming to enhance outcomes, such as healthcare quality and sustainability (Pennestrì et al., 2019). In the domain of business process modeling, value-oriented thinking incorporates financial metrics not only to control costs but also to inform strategic decision-making and support value creation across organizational processes (vom Brocke et al., 2008).

To synthesize this distinction, Table 5 presents a conceptual comparison between cost-focused and value-oriented Procurement KPI approaches.

Table 5
Contrasting cost-focused and value-oriented Procurement KPI approaches.

Cost-focused	Value-oriented
(savings dominance, short-term metrics, operational control)	(ESG/Innovation KPIs, strategic metrics, value creation)
Savings	ESG
Payment terms	Innovation
Contract coverage	Supplier development
Short-term	Long-term
Transactional logic	Strategic logic

• Source: Developed by the authors based on the literature and empirical research findings.

This distinction is consistent with prior research suggesting that greater procurement maturity is associated with the adoption of more strategic and value-oriented KPIs (Georgino et al., 2025; Schiele, 2007). Nevertheless, our empirical results do not provide evidence of a fully developed value-oriented approach. While cost-focused KPIs clearly dominate, some indicators identified in the data, particularly those related to risk management, service levels, and ESG, can be interpreted as early or partial expressions of value creation. These indicators contribute to organizational resilience, compliance, and operational continuity, even if they are not yet embedded in a comprehensive value-based performance framework.

Among the 56 mapped KPIs, only six diverged from cost-focused metrics:

• Two ESG-related indicators (one related to greenhouse gas emissions and one related to supplier diversity);

• Spend negotiated via auctions;

• Raw material shortages on the production line;

• Inventory obsolescence;

• Procurement performance is assessed through the SLA and Quality, Commercial, Policy, and Compliance dimensions.

Notably absent were KPIs related to the following:

• Team development or competency maturity;

• Savings derived from the total cost of ownership (TCO) or outsourcing;

• Supplier performance in quality, delivery, flexibility, or innovation;

• Procurement involvement in new product or service development.

The findings of the present study align with those of Caniato et al. (2014) and Pohl & Förstl (2011), who emphasize that the procurement function is frequently evaluated on the basis of criteria established by internal stakeholders who prioritize cost savings over strategic value. Similar concerns are raised by Cox (2015), who discusses the issue of procurement being constrained by traditional financial metrics (such as spend and savings), thereby limiting its strategic orientation. These limitations underscore the need to advance procurement performance measurements toward more strategic dimensions, as highlighted by Darom & Plant (2023) and Caruso et al. (2023).

Moreover, the predominance of cost-focused KPIs in Brazilian companies can be attributed to technological constraints and contextual and organizational factors. Regulatory complexity (particularly in heavily regulated sectors) encourages the use of auditable, cost-focused indicators that fulfill compliance requirements but restrict strategic agility (Caruso et al., 2023). In addition, economic volatility and the prevalence of short-term planning horizons incentivize organizations to adopt KPIs that deliver immediate, measurable outcomes (Ellram & Tate, 2021). Complementing this perspective, evidence from emerging economies shows that procurement systems tend to prioritize normative and financial indicators at the expense of more strategic practices (Gupta et al., 2015).

In addition to these structural conditions, organizational dynamics play a critical role. Procurement functions are often evaluated on the basis of short-term financial performance, reflecting internal stakeholder expectations and reinforcing cost-centric mindsets. In addition, leadership priorities and organizational culture may limit the strategic repositioning of procurement, even when data and systems are available. Together, these factors create a reinforcing cycle in which cost-focused KPIs remain dominant, whereas the adoption of value-oriented metrics remains partial and uneven.

Reinforcing the previous discussion, the empirical findings do not support a fully developed value-oriented approach, but instead underscore the continued dominance of cost-driven metrics. This reality is further exacerbated by specific contextual factors in Brazil. The high degree of regulatory complexity, particularly in heavily regulated industries such as B and D, encourages the adoption of easily auditable, cost-focused indicators that fulfill compliance requirements, thereby constraining strategic agility (Caruso et al., 2023). Moreover, economic volatility and the prevalence of short-term planning horizons, which are characteristic of emerging markets, reinforce reliance on KPIs that deliver immediate outcomes, such as cost savings and payment terms.

5 Conclusion, limitations, and future research suggestions

This study aimed to investigate the central research question concerning how Procurement KPIs in Brazilian companies reflect a strategic shift from traditional cost-focused metrics to modern value-oriented performance models. The empirical findings clearly indicate that, despite the conceptual evolution advocated in the literature toward holistic and strategic indicators, such as innovation and sustainability, the organizational reality in Brazil reveals a strong persistence of transactional logic in performance measurement in practice. By identifying 56 distinct KPIs across seven companies, this study confirmed that the vast majority are cost-focused (e.g., savings and payment terms), reinforcing a function primarily evaluated on immediate financial efficiency and operational control. This result illustrates the significant gap between the conceptual evolution of Procurement KPIs and their practical application in this under researched emerging context.

Crucially, the observed dominance of short-term, cost-focused metrics can be synthesized as a response to the unique structural constraints inherent to the Brazilian operational environment. The persistent focus on cost savings is reinforced by identified barriers, such as difficulty in data integration and fragmented data systems, which collectively inhibit the adoption of integrated predictive metrics necessary for long-term value creation. Furthermore, the prevalence of short-term planning horizons and regulatory complexity, which are common in emerging economies, incentivizes the use of auditable and cost-focused indicators that deliver immediate and measurable outcomes. While the study notes that most sampled companies operate at intermediate maturity levels (levels 2 or 3 of Schiele’s model), the near absence of strategic indicators related to ESG, talent development, or supplier performance challenges the assumption that organizational maturity naturally leads to a linear progression toward value-oriented performance systems. This evidence reinforces the theoretical argument that the diffusion of strategic KPI frameworks remains uneven across geographies regions, constrained specifically by operational and institutional challenges unique to the Brazilian context.

While this qualitative study offers rich empirical detail, its limitations (small, sector-specific sample) necessitate that its contextual insights be formalized into propositions for future quantitative validation studies. These propositions are not merely suggestions but represent direct, actionable outputs stemming from our original observation of the Brazilian context, establishing a critical foundation for new knowledge. The empirical data, which identified 56 KPIs, with an overwhelming majority being cost-focused (e.g., savings and payment terms) and a notable absence of strategic metrics such as ESG or talent development, directly inform Proposition 1 (P1): the stronger the perceived cost-focused mandate within procurement is, the lower the likelihood of adopting value-oriented KPIs (e.g., ESG, innovation, talent). This proposition formalizes the central conflict observed between the traditional operational control perspective and the push toward value-oriented performance models.

Furthermore, the significant operational challenges reported by practitioners, such as data integration difficulties and the lack of analytical capabilities among procurement teams, underpin the necessary conditions for strategic advancement. This leads to Proposition 2 (P2), which suggests that organizations with higher procurement data integration (e.g., BI tools) are more likely to use predictive or value-oriented KPIs, and Proposition 3 (P3), which asserts that the presence of procurement professionals with analytical or strategic backgrounds increases KPI maturity levels. These propositions underscore the critical roles of technology and human capital in enabling a strategic shift beyond maturity levels 2 or 3. Finally, recognizing the identified contextual constraints, including the need to comply with industry-specific regulatory requirements, we derive Proposition 4 (P4): Sectoral regulatory intensity moderates the diversity of KPI categories used in procurement performance systems. These four empirically grounded propositions provide a clear and structured research agenda, moving the discussion forward by challenging existing frameworks that assume linear progression toward strategic KPI adoption in emerging economies. Comparative studies across regions or organizational structures can now utilize these testable hypotheses to refine our understanding of the evolution of global performance improvement.

In summary, as an exploratory qualitative study based on a purposive sample of seven companies, the findings are not intended to be statistically generalizable but rather intend to provide context-specific analytical insights into Procurement KPI practices in Brazil. Within these boundaries, the study reveals a consistent pattern in which procurement functions remain predominantly anchored in transactional and cost-focused logic. This persistence, evidenced by the dominance of savings-related KPIs and the absence of strategic metrics (such as ESG indicators or talent development), highlights the significant gap between the conceptual evolution of KPIs and their practical application in Brazil. Although most of the sampled firms operate at intermediate maturity levels, the findings challenge the assumption that organizational maturity leads to a linear progression toward fully value-oriented measurement systems (Darom & Plant, 2023). Factors such as data integration and master data quality challenges demonstrate that operational and institutional constraints may act as important moderating factors in the diffusion and adoption of strategic KPI frameworks in emerging market contexts.

Building on these findings, this study opens several avenues for future research that extend beyond descriptive insights and contribute to the advancement of the procurement performance measurement literature. First, the persistent dominance of cost-focused KPIs suggests the need for further investigation into the organizational and institutional conditions that inhibit the adoption of value-oriented metrics, particularly in emerging economies. Second, the identified barriers, especially those related to data integration and analytical capabilities, highlight the importance of examining how digital infrastructure and human capital jointly shape the evolution of procurement maturity. Third, the limited presence of ESG and innovation-related KPIs indicates an opportunity for future studies to explore how regulatory pressures, such as sustainability directives, accelerate or reshape KPI adoption in supply chains. Future research could further investigate the conditions under which organizations transition from being cost-focused to being value-oriented. Finally, comparative studies across countries or sectors could help assess whether the patterns observed in Brazil reflect broader dynamics in emerging markets or are context-specific constraints.

Appendix 1 Interview guide.

1. Company:

2. Industry Sector:

3. Revenue in 2023:

4. Number of Employees:

5. Number of Employees in Procurement/Supply Chain:

6. Procurement/Supply Chain Spend in 2023:

7. Number of Active Suppliers:

8. How are KPIs monitored? (weekly, monthly, board meetings...)

9. Who is responsible for collecting and organizing KPI data? (automated, analyst, manager...)

10. What tool is used? (Excel, Power BI, Tableau...)

11. Who defines the KPIs annually? (executive board, management, finance...)

12. Do KPIs change from year to year?

13. How are targets set? (stakeholder alignment, previous year’s performance + X%...)

14. Are there any current barriers to establishing, monitoring, or achieving KPIs? If so, what are they?

15. What is the current level of Procurement maturity? (based on Schiele's model) (Schiele, 2007)

16. List all KPIs currently monitored by the Procurement department, along with their measurement rule/metric.

Acknowledgements

We extend our gratitude to the Centro Internacional de Estudos em Compras (CIEC) for its support of this study.

• Financial support:
  This study was partially financed by the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), Brazil.
• How to cite:
  Georgino, M., Mendes, D. W., & Castro, V. (2026). Procurement key performance indicators: a multiple case study on Brazilian companies. Gestão & Produção, 33, e15925. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2026v33e15925

Statement on Data Availability

The data used in this study are not publicly available, as this research is based on a case study. Data were collected through interviews, and the resulting information was organized and analyzed by the authors. All participants’ identities were kept anonymous to ensure confidentiality. However, additional information regarding the data and the methodological procedures adopted may be provided upon reasonable request to the corresponding authors, subject to the restrictions mentioned above.

References

• Abolbashari, M. H., Chang, E., Hussain, O. K., & Saberi, M. (2018). Smart Buyer: a Bayesian Network modelling approach for measuring and improving procurement performance in organisations. Knowledge-Based Systems, 142, 127-148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.11.032
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.knosys.2017.11.032
• Adeoye-Olatunde, O., & Olenik, N. (2021). Research and scholarly methods: semi-structured interviews. West Lafayette: Purdue University. Retrieved in 2025, December 20, from https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/phprpubs/6
  » https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/phprpubs/6
• Agrahari, A., & Srivastava, S. K. (2019). A data visualization tool to benchmark government tendering process: insights from two public enterprises. Benchmarking, 26(3), 836-853. https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2017-0148
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/BIJ-06-2017-0148
• Banelienė, R. (2021). Key performance indicators: contemporary challenges to industrial small and medium enterprises. Proceedings of the Estonian Academy of Sciences, 70(4), 399-406. https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.2021.4.05
  » https://doi.org/10.3176/proc.2021.4.05
• Berggren, O., & Matti, Z. (2021). A framework for defining, measuring, and predicting service procurement savings. Retrieved in 2025, December 20, from https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-299348
  » https://urn.kb.se/resolve?urn=urn:nbn:se:kth:diva-299348
• Bernard, H. R. (2002). Field notes: how to take them, code them, manage them. In H. R. Bernard (Ed.), Research methods in anthropology: qualitative and quantitative approaches (4th ed., pp. 387-412). New York: AltaMira Press. Retrieved in 2025, December 20, from http://ls-tlss.ucl.ac.uk/course-materials/BENVGPU3_55073.pdf
  » http://ls-tlss.ucl.ac.uk/course-materials/BENVGPU3_55073.pdf
• Brint, A., Genovese, A., Piccolo, C., & Taboada-Perez, G. J. (2021). Reducing data requirements when selecting key performance indicators for supply chain management: the case of a multinational automotive component manufacturer. International Journal of Production Economics, 233, 107967. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107967
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijpe.2020.107967
• Caniato, F., Luzzini, D., & Ronchi, S. (2014). Purchasing performance management systems: an empirical investigation. Production Planning and Control, 25(7), 616-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.743686
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/09537287.2012.743686
• Caruso, S., Bruccoleri, M., Pietrosi, A., & Scaccianoce, A. (2023). Artificial intelligence to counteract “KPI overload” in business process monitoring: the case of anti-corruption in public organizations. Business Process Management Journal, 29(4), 1227-1248. https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2022-0578
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/BPMJ-11-2022-0578
• Centro Internacional de Estudos em Compras – CIEC. (2024). KPIS de compras no Brasil: diagnóstico e direcionamento estratégico para o futuro (p. 27). São Paulo. Retrieved in 2025, December 20, from https://ciecacademy.com.br/comunidade-de-pratica-ciec/#sessao4
  » https://ciecacademy.com.br/comunidade-de-pratica-ciec/#sessao4
• Cox, A. (2015). Sourcing portfolio analysis and power positioning: towards a “paradigm shift” in category management and strategic sourcing. Supply Chain Management, 20(6), 717-736. https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0226
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/SCM-06-2015-0226
• Darom, M., & Plant, E. (2023). The development of a performance measurement system for indirect procurement: a Delphi study. Measuring Business Excellence, 27(4), 579-601. https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2019-0047
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/MBE-05-2019-0047
• Duarte, T. E., Ribeiro, P. C. C., & Costa, H. G. (2024). Indicators and performance requirements for suppliers’ evaluation in the Brazilian electricity sector. Brazilian Journal of Operations & Production Management, 21(3), 1984. https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.1984.2024
  » https://doi.org/10.14488/BJOPM.1984.2024
• Easterby-Smith, M., Valizade, D., Thorpe, R., & Jaspersen, L. (2026). Management and business research. London: SAGE. Retrieved in 2025, December 20, from https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/management-and-business-research/book286686
  » https://uk.sagepub.com/en-gb/eur/management-and-business-research/book286686
• Ellram, L. M., & Liu, B. (2002). The financial impact of supply management. Supply Chain Management Review, 6(6), 30-37.
• Ellram, L. M., & Tate, W. L. (2021). Cost avoidance: not everything that counts is counted. Journal of Business Logistics, 42(4), 406-427. https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12262
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jbl.12262
• Fife, S. T., & Gossner, J. D. (2024). Deductive qualitative analysis: evaluating, expanding, and refining theory. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 23, 16094069241244856. https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241244856
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069241244856
• Foerstl, K., Azadegan, A., Leppelt, T., & Hartmann, E. (2015). Drivers of supplier sustainability: moving beyond compliance to commitment. The Journal of Supply Chain Management, 51(1), 67-92. https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12067
  » https://doi.org/10.1111/jscm.12067
• Gelderman, C. J., Semeijn, J., & Roos, M.-J. (2024). Sustainability requirements in public tenders: an embedded case study at the Dutch Department of Public Works. Gestão & Produção, 31, e6424. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e6424
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2024v31e6424
• Georgino, M., Alcantara, R. L. C., & Albuquerque, A. A. (2024). The contribution of the procurement process to financial performance: a case study of the sugar-energy sector. International Journal of Procurement Management, 20(1), 47-66. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2024.137793
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2024.137793
• Georgino, M., Borges, M. C., & Batalha, M. O. (2025). Purchasing maturity linked to key performance indicators. International Journal of Procurement Management, 1(1), 10075757. https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2025.10075757
  » https://doi.org/10.1504/IJPM.2025.10075757
• Global State of Procurement – GEP. (2024). Global State of Procurement and Supply 2024 (p. 28). Chicago.
• Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How many interviews are enough? An experiment with data saturation and variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59-82. https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
  » https://doi.org/10.1177/1525822X05279903
• Gupta, A., Prakash, G., & Jadeja, J. (2015). Supply chain in the public procurement environment: some reflections from the Indian railways. Procedia: Social and Behavioral Sciences, 189, 292-302. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.225
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2015.03.225
• Gupta, S., Soni, U., & Kumar, G. (2019). Green supplier selection using multi-criterion decision making under fuzzy environment: a case study in automotive industry. Computers & Industrial Engineering, 136, 663-680. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.038
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cie.2019.07.038
• Jones, J., & Barner, K. (2014). Supply market intelligence for procurement professionals. Plantation, FL: J. Ross Publishing. Retrieved in 2025, December 20, from https://jrosspub.com/catalog/business-default-category/supply-management-procurement/supply-market-intelligence-for-procurement-professionals/
  » https://jrosspub.com/catalog/business-default-category/supply-management-procurement/supply-market-intelligence-for-procurement-professionals/
• Karl, A. A., Micheluzzi, J., Leite, L. R., & Pereira, C. R. (2018). Supply chain resilience and key performance indicators: A systematic literature review. Production, 28, e20180020. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20180020
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-6513.20180020
• Kusrini, E., Carolina, P. S., Worldailmi, E., Arifin, M., & Alma Fitria, M. (2024). Strategic selection of key performance indicators in procurement processes. In 2024 ASU International Conference in Emerging Technologies for Sustainability and Intelligent Systems (ICETSIS) (pp. 1-5). New York: IEEE. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETSIS61505.2024.10459542
  » https://doi.org/10.1109/ICETSIS61505.2024.10459542
• Li, Z., Zhou, X., & Ye, Z. (2019). A Formalization Model Transformation Approach on Workflow Automatic Execution from CIM Level to PIM Level. International Journal of Software Engineering and Knowledge Engineering, 29(09), 1179-1217. https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194019500372
  » https://doi.org/10.1142/S0218194019500372
• Lima, I. A. de S., Alcantara, B. de A., Gomes, H. C., & Samed, M. M. A. (2026). Healthcare supply chain resilience during the COVID-19 pandemic: PPE procurement challenges and strategies. Gestão & Produção, 33, e1325. https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2025v33e1325
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1806-9649-2025v33e1325
• Lysons, K., & Farrington, B. (2020). Procurement and supply chain management (10th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
• Marzuqi, R. A., & Abma, V. (2024). Performance analysis of supply chain for construction materials at high rise building project based on Supply Chain Operations Reference Method: a case study. IOP Conference Series. Earth and Environmental Science, 1369(1), 012003. https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1369/1/012003
  » https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/1369/1/012003
• Monczka, R., Blascovich, J., Parker, L., & Slaight, T. (2011). Value-focused supply: linking supply to business strategies. Supply Chain Management Review, 15(2), 334-339.
• Monczka, R., Handfield, R. B., Giunipero, L. C., & Patterson, J. L. (2020). Purchasing and supply chain management (7th ed.). Boston: Cengage Learning.
• Nabhani, F., Uhl, C. J., Kauf, F., & Shokri, A. (2018). Purchasing manages and optimises existing product variance. Journal of Manufacturing Technology Management, 29(3), 430-448. https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2017-0053
  » https://doi.org/10.1108/JMTM-03-2017-0053
• Nicolazzo, S., Nocera, A., & Pedrycz, W. (2026). Service level agreements and security SLA: a comprehensive survey. Journal of Network and Systems Management, 34(3), 74. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10922-026-10041-w
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10922-026-10041-w
• Parmenter, D. (2019). Key performance indicators: developing, implementing, and using winning KPIs. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119620785
  » https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119620785
• Pennestrì, F., Lippi, G., & Banfi, G. (2019). Pay less and spend more: the real value in healthcare procurement. Annals of Translational Medicine, 7(22), 688. https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.10.93 PMid:31930089.
  » https://doi.org/10.21037/atm.2019.10.93
• Picoli, L., & Bin, A. (2025). The strategic transformation of procurement by technological adoption: implementation and use of Robotic Process Automation. Gestão & Produção, 32, e10223.
• Pohl, M., & Förstl, K. (2011). Achieving purchasing competence through purchasing performance measurement system design: a multiple-case study analysis. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 17(4), 231-245. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2011.04.001
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2011.04.001
• Saunders, M. N. K., Lewis, P., & Thornhill, A. (2019). Research methods for business students (9th ed.). Harlow: Pearson.
• Schiele, H. (2007). Supply-management maturity, cost savings and purchasing absorptive capacity: testing the procurement–performance link. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 13(4), 274-293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2007.10.002
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2007.10.002
• Stek, K., & Schiele, H. (2021). How to train supply managers: necessary and sufficient purchasing skills leading to success. Journal of Purchasing and Supply Management, 27(4), 100700. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100700
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pursup.2021.100700
• Stuart, I., McCutcheon, D., Handfield, R., McLachlin, R., & Samson, D. (2002). Effective case research in operations management: A process perspective. Journal of Operations Management, 20(5), 419-433. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00022-0
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/S0272-6963(02)00022-0
• Swain, A. K., & Garza, V. R. (2023). Key factors in achieving Service Level Agreements (SLA) for Information Technology (IT) incident resolution. Information Systems Frontiers, 25(2), 819-834. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10266-5 PMid:35345578.
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s10796-022-10266-5
• Tan, W., Zhu, H., Tan, J., Zhao, Y., Xu, L. D., & Guo, K. (2022). A novel service level agreement model using blockchain and smart contract for cloud manufacturing in industry 4.0. Enterprise Information Systems, 16(12), 1939426. https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2021.1939426
  » https://doi.org/10.1080/17517575.2021.1939426
• Trinczek, R. (2009). How to interview managers? Methodical and methodological aspects of expert interviews as a qualitative method in empirical social research. In A. Bogner, B. Littig & W. Menz (Eds.), Interviewing experts (pp. 203-216). London: Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276_10
  » https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230244276_10
• vom Brocke, J., Mendling, J., & Recker, J. (2008). Value-oriented process modeling: towards a financial perspective on business process redesign. QUT ePrints, 1-10. Retrieved in 2025, December 20, from https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2008/350
  » https://aisel.aisnet.org/amcis2008/350
• Voss, C., Johnson, M., & Godsell, J. (2016). Case research. In Christer Karlsson (Ed.), Research methods for operations management (2nd ed.). London: Routledge.
• Wu, L., Buyya, R., Wu, L., & Buyya, R. (2012). Service Level Agreement (SLA) in utility computing systems. In Reso Management Association (Ed.), Grid and cloud computing: concepts, methodologies, tools and applications. Hershey: IGI Global Scientific Publishing. https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0879-5.ch114
  » https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-4666-0879-5.ch114
• Yin, R. K. (2015). Estudo de caso: planejamento e métodos (5. ed.). Porto Alegre: Bookman.

• Editor-in-Chief
  Pedro Munari

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  27 July 2026
• Date of issue
  2026

History

• Received
  20 Dec 2025
• Reviewed
  05 Apr 2026
• Accepted
  03 June 2026