An independent audit of your technology spend, in writing, by someone with no software to sell you and no percentage of the savings to collect.
SaaS and licence spend accumulates quietly — a tool procured by one team, never decommissioned when the project ended; two products doing overlapping jobs because no one coordinated the purchase; licences sized for a headcount the business no longer has. What you don’t have is an independent, unhurried audit of what’s actually being paid for versus what’s actually being used.
That is what this engagement is.
€15,000. Three to four weeks. Delivered in writing, with a presentation to whoever needs to hear it.
Fixed fee. No implementation work. No commissions. No percentage of identified savings — a flat fee regardless of what’s found.
Why clients commission this review
- Technology spend has grown faster than headcount or revenue and no one has a consolidated view of why.
- A cost-cutting mandate has come from the board or investors, and technology spend is an obvious place to look, but no one has time to do it properly internally.
- Several tools appear to overlap functionally, and consolidating them has been discussed but never actually assessed.
- Growth through acquisition has left duplicate licences across the combined organisation that have never been rationalised.
Who this is for
Boards and finance leaders wanting an independent, evidence-based read on technology spend before deciding where to cut or consolidate.
Organisations under a genuine cost-reduction mandate needing a defensible, prioritised list rather than an across-the-board percentage cut.
Who this is not for
Organisations wanting the actual contract renegotiation or cancellation handled. We identify and recommend; we do not negotiate on your behalf.
What you receive
The Review tells you three things in writing: what’s genuinely being paid for versus used, where the real overlap sits, and what to act on first. Five artefacts, delivered together, in plain language.
A full spend inventory. Every SaaS and licence cost identified, mapped to the team or function actually paying for it.
A genuine utilisation assessment. What’s actually being used, at what proportion of licensed capacity, versus what’s sitting idle.
A functional overlap map. Where two or more tools genuinely do the same job, with a recommendation on which to keep.
A prioritised savings roadmap. Ranked by realistic savings versus disruption, so the highest-value, lowest-risk changes happen first.
A board presentation. A one-hour session with your board or finance committee, findings presented, challenged, and discussed in the room.
How the Review runs
Three to four weeks, in four phases: scoping and spend inventory, interviews and utilisation evidence gathering across every function with meaningful technology spend, synthesis and writing, then presentation and revisions around your board cycle.
Everything is written before it is said. Nothing is presented to your board that you have not read first.
What this is not
A savings-percentage brokerage. We charge a flat fee, not a cut of what’s identified, so the recommendation is what genuinely makes sense, not what maximises our own fee.
Contract negotiation. We identify what to act on; negotiating the actual terms is separate work, on your timeline, with your procurement function or ours as a retainer if that’s useful.
Proof
References available on request.
What happens next
Start a ConversationThirty minutes. We confirm fit, scope, and timing. No proposal is sent unless you ask for one.