Case Studies
Illustrations of procurement mechanisms, not experiments or causal evidence. Calculator values come from the model and are not outcomes reported by these organizations.
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.
Formal path
44 days
Strategic private purchase — formal tender (RFQ/RFP)
Adaptive path
24 days
Partial ERP
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
ΔC range: -0.8% to 13.2% of contract value.
Source: 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.
Formal path
50.599999999999994 days
Strategic private purchase — formal tender (RFQ/RFP)
Adaptive path
27.599999999999994 days
Sourcing tool
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
ΔC range: -0.1% to 36.8% of contract value.
Source: 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.
Formal path
44 days
Strategic private purchase — formal tender (RFQ/RFP)
Adaptive path
24 days
Partial ERP
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
ΔC range: -1.1% to 5.6% of contract value.
Source: LAP Alliance / Agile Business Consortium (2021) — Air France KLM Martinair Cargo case study (practitioner example, illustrative)
Zara — Responsive Fast-Fashion Supply Chain (illustrative)
Ferdows, Lewis and Machuca describe Zara's responsive supply network. This is an operations and supply-chain case, not evidence for a procurement method or for replacing tenders with AI.
Formal path
61.599999999999994 days
Strategic private purchase — formal tender (RFQ/RFP)
Adaptive path
33.599999999999994 days
Manual (Excel / email)
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
ΔC range: -0.1% to 65.6% of contract value.
Source: Ferdows, Lewis & Machuca, HBR (2004) — Rapid-Fire Fulfillment (illustrative example)
Tunel vs Pole — ten sam zakup, dwa światy
Two lawful designs for the same procedure: more sequential and more adaptive. The result depends on delay cost, competition, and contract design; it does not assume an exemption from PZP.
Formal path
87 days
Strategic PZP — open tender (above EU thresholds)
Adaptive path
71 days
Partial ERP
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
ΔC range: -0.8% to 20.3% of contract value.
Source: Konstrukcja modelu 2.2 — scenariusz ilustracyjny bez źródła zewnętrznego. Wartości wejściowe są założeniami, a nie danymi z żadnego badania.
Ryanair CAPEX — Boeing bulk order at crisis prices (private-sector example)
The report documents a large Boeing order and price concessions, but not Ryanair's internal CAPEX gates, pre-qualification, or procurement-cycle time. This scenario illustrates the cost calculation and is not a reconstruction of Ryanair's process.
Formal path
120 days
Strategic CAPEX investment (justified governance)
Adaptive path
84 days
Partial ERP
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
ΔC range: -1.0% to 21.9% of contract value.
Source: Ryanair 2002/2003 Annual Report / SEC Form 20-F (Boeing price concessions)
Scenariusz kontrolny: formalność może wygrać
When delay cost is negligible, the market is stable, and the formal path retains a competition advantage, the central result can favor formality. The broad stress test may still reverse the sign.
Formal path
13.999999999999998 days
Strategic purchase — adaptive and compliant path
Adaptive path
13.999999999999998 days
End-to-end (Ariba / Coupa)
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
ΔC range: -0.9% to 1.4% of contract value.
Source: Założenia scenariuszowe ProcuraCost 2.1 — nie obserwacja empiryczna
Scenariusz kontrolny II: adaptacja bywa droższa
When the requirement emerges in flight, the adaptive path buys learning with time: co-design and a re-scoping round lengthen the calendar and raise effort. The formal path freezes the requirement early and finishes sooner, paying with a worse fit and weaker lifecycle capture. This scenario exists so the model's thesis can be refuted, not only confirmed.
Formal path
34 days
Strategic discovery purchase — requirement unknown at the outset
Adaptive path
47 days
Partial ERP
Day figures are illustrative model output for a purchase of this size, not the figures from the cited case.
ΔC range: -15.0% to 3.9% of contract value.
Source: Konstrukcja modelu 2.2 — scenariusz ilustracyjny bez źródła zewnętrznego. Wartości wejściowe są założeniami, a nie danymi z badania.
The Enforcement Fallacy
Organizational theory suggests mechanisms through which strict enforcement can displace effort or hide workarounds. Lipsky (1980), Vaughan (1996), and Holmström & Milgrom (1991) concern different settings; their application to procurement is analogical and does not establish a bypass probability or a universal causal effect.
Sources: Lipsky (1980) Street-Level Bureaucracy; Vaughan (1996) The Challenger Launch Decision; Holmström & Milgrom (1991) Multitask Principal-Agent Problems and Incentive Contracts
