Procurement Analysis Power BI dashboard mockup

Procurement Spend Analytics
and Vendor Risk Analysis

A procurement analytics case study using MySQL and Power BI to identify vendor spend concentration, discount performance, and renegotiation opportunities.

This project analyzes how much money a company pays its outside suppliers (“vendors”), and flags which supplier relationships are worth renegotiating.

Business Problem

Companies rely on many outside suppliers, known as vendors, to run day-to-day operations. Most companies rarely examine this spending closely. As a result, it becomes difficult to tell which supplier relationships are working well and which ones need to change.

Analytical Objective

Build a system that tracks vendor spending and identifies which supplier relationships are worth renegotiating.

Highlight

Built a dashboard that automatically identifies vendors who receive significant spending but offer limited discounts in return. Also found that spending is distributed across nearly all vendors rather than concentrated among a few — contrary to what most would expect.

Data Context
  • Procurement transaction data modeled on an 8-table relational schema (Vendor, Item, Location, Date, Currency, Exchange Rate, Invoice, Invoice Line Item)
  • 2 years of daily transaction data
  • Final cleaned dataset: 3,259 invoices, 9,776 invoice line items, 30 vendors
Analytical Approach
Q1
QUESTIONWhat is our total spend, total savings, and overall discount rate across all vendors?
SQL TECHNIQUEAggregation
FINDINGTotal spend is $84.07M, total savings $1.76M, overall discount rate 2.10%.
Q2
QUESTIONWhich 10 vendors receive the most money from us?
SQL TECHNIQUESubquery + Join
FINDINGVantage IT Services leads at $3.88M, followed by Lakeside Furniture, Zenith Travel Services, Horizon Cleaning Services, and six others; combined, the top 10 account for $33.52M, 39.9% of total spend.
Q3
QUESTIONWhat percentage of our total spend goes to each vendor tier?
SQL TECHNIQUECTE + Window Function (SUM() OVER())
FINDINGTier 1: 38.1% ($32.05M). Tier 2: 37.8% ($31.80M). Tier 3: 24.0% ($20.21M) — Tier 1 and Tier 2 are nearly tied.
Q4
QUESTIONHow does spend in each category change from month to month, and is it trending up or down?
SQL TECHNIQUECTE + Window Function (LAG())
FINDINGEvery category dips sharply in September and rebounds in October. Direct materials drops hardest, down 68.6% from August to September ($1.12M → $0.35M), before rebounding to $1.36M in October.
Q5
QUESTIONDoes our discount rate get worse in months when we place more orders?
SQL TECHNIQUEAggregation
FINDINGNo clear pattern. February had the highest invoice volume (375) with a 1.97% discount, September had the lowest volume (127) with a comparable 2.06% discount — volume and discount rate don't move together in an obvious way.
Q6
QUESTIONWithin each vendor tier, which vendor spends the most?
SQL TECHNIQUECTE + Window Function (RANK())
FINDINGTier 1: Brightline Consulting ($3.35M). Tier 2: Zenith Travel Services ($3.53M). Tier 3: Vantage IT Services ($3.88M) — notably, the single biggest vendor company-wide sits in Tier 3, not Tier 1.
Q7
QUESTIONWhat is our running total of spend as the year progresses?
SQL TECHNIQUECTE + Window Function (SUM() OVER (ORDER BY...))
FINDINGBuilds steadily from January, reaching the full $84.07M by year-end, with the steepest single-month climb following the September dip.
Q8
QUESTIONDo a small number of categories account for most of our spend?
SQL TECHNIQUECorrelated Subquery
FINDINGNot strongly. The top 2 of 4 categories (Indirect Goods & Services, Other) account for 58.6% of spend, close to an even split rather than a dominant category.
Q9
QUESTIONHow is our spend and savings distributed by country?
SQL TECHNIQUEJoin
FINDINGThe US leads with $34.94M (41.6%), followed by Mexico at $15.19M (18.1%), together nearly 60% of total spend. The remaining five countries (Germany, UK, France, Canada, Spain) are tightly clustered at 7–9% each. Savings rate stays consistent (~2.0–2.1%) across all countries, so the imbalance is about spend volume, not discount quality.
Q10
QUESTIONWhich vendors combine high spend with a below-average discount, making them renegotiation candidates?
SQL TECHNIQUECTE + Subquery in WHERE
FINDING9 vendors flagged as renegotiation candidates, combining above-average spend with below-average discount.
Q11
QUESTIONHow many vendors does it actually take to reach 80% of our total spend?
SQL TECHNIQUECTE + Window Functions (RANK(), SUM() OVER())
FINDING23 of 30 vendors (76.7%) are needed to reach 80% of total spend, far from the classic 80/20 pattern.
Method and Tools
  • Relational database design (star schema)
  • SQL: CTEs, window functions (RANK, LAG, SUM OVER), subqueries
  • Data cleaning and referential integrity validation
  • Power BI dashboard design and DAX measures
  • Interactive Plotly visualizations

MySQL 8 · Power BI · Python (data generation, validation, and charting)

Workflow
  • Designed a star-schema database (1 fact table, 5 dimension tables) in MySQL
  • Loaded and validated the dataset, checking for nulls, duplicate keys, broken foreign key references, and statistical outliers
  • Wrote 11 analytical SQL queries using CTEs, window functions (RANK, LAG, running SUM OVER), and subqueries to answer spend, discount, concentration, and Pareto questions
  • Built a Power BI dashboard connecting directly to MySQL, with DAX measures for total spend, savings, discount rate, and an automated vendor renegotiation flag
  • Built supplementary interactive Plotly visualizations for deeper exploration of each finding
  • Translated the analysis into a prioritized, actionable vendor list

Figure 1: Total procurement spend broken down by vendor tier. Tier 1 accounts for $32.05M (38.1%) and Tier 2 for $31.80M (37.8%), nearly identical shares, while Tier 3 trails at $20.21M (24.0%).

Figure 2: Monthly spend across the full 2024–2025 period. A consistent seasonal dip appears every September in both years, with spend recovering sharply by November and December.

Figure 3: The ten highest-spend vendors, ranging from Vantage IT Services at $3.88M down to Falcon Warehousing at $2.92M, together accounting for just under 40% of total spend.

Figure 4: Total spend across the four procurement categories, led by Indirect Goods & Services at $27.03M, with Direct materials the smallest at $14.40M.

Figure 5: All 30 vendors ranked by spend against their cumulative share of total spend. The 80% threshold isn’t reached until vendor #23 — a notably flat concentration curve rather than a classic 80/20 pattern.

Figure 6: Every vendor plotted by average discount rate against total spend. Vendors in the upper-left quadrant — above-average spend paired with below-average discount — are flagged as renegotiation candidates.

Business Recommendations

● Prioritize conversations with the identified vendors first, as they represent the clearest opportunity.
● Consider consolidating spend among fewer vendors to strengthen negotiating power.
● Plan ahead for the seasonal slowdown in September rather than reacting to it.
● Review vendor tiers regularly to identify emerging risks early.
● Repeat this analysis quarterly rather than treating it as a one-time exercise.

Why This Matters

Most companies already possess this data, yet rarely take the time to analyze it. This project transforms unused data into three practical outcomes for a procurement team: a clear list of vendors worth renegotiating, evidence that consolidating vendors could reduce costs, and a dashboard that updates automatically as new data arrives.

What This Project Demonstrates
  • Relational database design (star schema) from raw transactional data
  • SQL proficiency: CTEs, window functions, subqueries, referential integrity validation
  • Power BI dashboard design connected to a live SQL data source
  • DAX measure design, including multi-condition automated flagging logic
  • Interactive data visualization with Plotly
  • Ability to translate a broad analytical question into a specific, actionable business output
Conclusion

This project converts everyday purchase records into a tool a procurement team could genuinely use. It identifies exactly which vendors are worth renegotiating with, and reveals that the company works with more vendors than necessary. This is not simply a report; it is a repeatable system that continues to deliver value well beyond the initial analysis.

Real-World Impact & Benefit

The true value of this project lies in what it allows a business to do differently, not just what it reveals.
● It turns unused invoice data into direct, actionable savings. Rather than guessing which vendor to renegotiate with, a procurement team can open the dashboard and see exactly who to approach first.
● It exposes a hidden risk. Before this analysis, the business would likely assume its top vendors were already well-negotiated simply because they receive the most attention. The data shows otherwise — visible only once spend and discount are examined together.
● It reveals a genuine cost-saving opportunity through consolidation. Because spending is spread across far more vendors than expected, routing more volume through fewer suppliers could meaningfully increase the company’s negotiating leverage.
● It supports better planning. Knowing that invoice activity consistently drops every September allows procurement to plan negotiations and staffing around a real, recurring pattern instead of reacting to it after the fact.
● It becomes a living system, not a one-time report. Because it connects directly to the underlying data, the same dashboard can be refreshed every quarter — meaning the business benefits from this work continuously, not just once.

Scroll to Top