Tunnel or field?
It is an empirical question.
A tunnel has walls. A field has a horizon.
The model tests when sequential formality costs more than the control value it creates—without assuming the winner.
~6%
price increase under discretion; structural estimate, Hungarian-market transfer
Szucs, JEEA 2024
0.077–0.105/year
added formal-amendment frequency for a 1 SD rise in each of 7 contract-rigidity categories
Beuve et al., JLEO 2023, 2SLS/IV
0–15%
declared TCO stress test; central scenario is zero
model 2.2 assumption
How ProcuraCost works
Describe your purchase
Choose a scenario (Ryanair, Swiss Casinos, Zara…) or enter your own data: contract value, process type, team and rates. No registration required.
Calculate hidden costs
The model computes seven dimensions and reports a central result with a broad scenario range that may favor either path.
Compare and act
Results include illustrative scenarios (model-generated), a procurement-path recommendation (rule-based model with sensitivity analysis) and a PDF report with academic citations.
Procedure ≠ Policy
Policy defines boundaries and procedure orders activities. Separating them lets us compare lawful paths without assuming the result.
Control and adaptation
Formalisation can protect competition and auditability; adaptation can reduce delay. The model represents both mechanisms.
Costs are measurable
Each day of delay and each formal amendment can carry a cost. The calculator shows the components and the threshold at which the recommendation changes.
Case studies — flexible procurement in practice
Ryanair Fleet Procurement (private-sector example)
The annual report documents a large Boeing 737 order and manufacturer price concessions. It does not describe a comparable procurement workflow or identify an effect of flexibility; the scenario values are independent model assumptions.
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
Ryanair 2002/2003 Annual Report / SEC Form 20-F (Boeing price concessions)
Swiss Casinos ERP — Agile Sourcing (private-sector example)
An Agile Business Consortium practitioner report states that Swiss Casinos sourced its ERP in four weeks. This is a claim reported by an organisation promoting the method, not an independent study or the full implementation time.
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
Agile Business Consortium — Case Study: Swiss Casinos (practitioner report)
Air France KLM Martinair Cargo — Lean Agile Procurement (private-sector example)
Private-sector case: Air France KLM applied Lean Agile Procurement for cargo door-to-door modernisation within a tight time window. A practitioner example illustrating private-sector efficiency — not empirical evidence about public-procurement law.
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
LAP Alliance / Agile Business Consortium (2021) — Air France KLM Martinair Cargo case study (practitioner example, illustrative)
The Tunnel vs. Field model
The same purchase and compliance boundary, but two lawful paths. The model tests when formalisation protects value and when adaptation costs less.
Formal path = Tunnel
a₁ → a₂ → a₃ → ··· → aₙ
Sequencing can increase timing. Bypass is a scenario risk to measure, not an automatic consequence.
Adaptive path = Field
∂Φ = {auth, competition, ethics, docs}
∞
compliant paths
Adaptation guarantees neither compliance nor lower cost; it requires effective competition, documentation and controls.
Theoretical basis: Lipsky (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy; Vaughan (1996) Challenger; Holmström & Milgrom (1991) Multitask Principal-Agent
When tunnel, when field — threshold map
Horizontal axis: the daily cost of inaction you supply. The color shows which path wins in each category — and where the result depends on assumptions.
Comparator inputs: partial-ERP technology, 2-year contract, amendment 4% of CV, exposure 10% of CV. Thresholds grow with contract value; the discovery category is inverted — its formal path is faster, so costlier delay helps formality. The “assumptions decide” bands are the evidence-scenario envelope, not confidence intervals. Full map: replication/outputs/decision-thresholds.md.
Team
Model architect / ProcureTech
Tomasz Ślusarczyk
Procurement expert
Rafał Madejewski
Analyst & researcher
See what your organisation is losing
Cost calculator, path optimizer and a free procurement maturity self-assessment — with empirical evidence separated from broad scenario assumptions.
