What happens after signing deserves attention.
Research documents problems with contract follow-through, information and ownership. SGG applies that concern to a defined task: independently reviewing recurring vendor relationships against the available evidence.
The scale of agreement-management problems
Deloitte & Docusign · 2024
Their study estimates up to $2 trillion in annual global economic value lost through poor agreement management, based on a survey of more than 1,000 business leaders in 10 countries. It covers the full agreement lifecycle and several business functions. It is a research estimate, not a measured pool of recoverable overpayments. Docusign is a commercial agreement-management provider.
2024 Digital Agreement Management Study · Original report
World Commerce & Contracting · 2026
Closing the Procurement Value Gap reports average contract-value erosion of 11% and connects post-signature failures to fragmented accountability. Its public summary describes cumulative losses across multiple causes. This is broad procurement research, not a recurring-services overbilling rate or a prediction for any SGG client. The report was produced in partnership with Ironclad, a contract lifecycle management provider. WorldCC notes the figure may understate actual losses because most organizations do not formally track value leakage. The full member report’s detailed methodology was not independently assessed here.
McKinsey · 2018
In a review of more than 100 procurement contracts, half lacked clauses establishing governance bodies and escalation paths. That is evidence of weaknesses in the contracts reviewed; it is not a representative finding that half of all businesses lack oversight.
Contracting for performance: Unlocking additional value
U.S. Government Accountability Office · 2024
GAO found incomplete and unreliable VA service-contract data and shortcomings in oversight guidance for functions requiring heightened attention. This is a documented public-sector example of an ownership and information problem, not a private-sector prevalence estimate.
What this means for your recurring vendors
The research supports asking who checks the relationship after the agreement is signed. It does not establish that any particular invoice is wrong, that SGG can recover a fixed percentage, or that the cited organizations endorse SGG.
The risk is not that something is definitely wrong. The risk is that you do not know.
First establish the annual outside-service spend. Then decide what oversight you expect, who owns it, and what evidence shows it happened. An SGG review records what passed, what needs attention, and what could not be verified. A separate Human Review Required flag identifies where judgment is needed. Operational decisions remain with the client.
Industry spend sources and limitations →
Compare Your Standards with Current Practice
No contact information required. A self-assessment is not independent verification.