A Statement of Work (SOW) Backdrop - The Foundation of a Business Case 

Report Co-authored by: Jason Busch, Thomas Kase, and Fieldglass

Spend Matters and Fieldglass have observed a significant ramping up of many contingent workforce and services procurement programs within Global 2000 organizations over the past few years. For companies serious about general procurement programs and enablement through technology, the additional investment in a VMS (vendor management system) to tackle contingent spending is a logical extension to core capabilities in the indirect purchase-to-pay arena. It also enables additional spend analysis, e-sourcing, contract management and supplier management capabilities. Yet few organizations making a concerted effort to pursue contingent spending have made a similar investment in their statement of work (SOW) initiatives, at least to date. This is unfortunate, as the capabilities enabling SOW control, compliance, and negotiated and implemented savings often differ from VMS automation platforms that only support contingent labor spend today.

Download this report and receive the direction needed to help you form a business case to support your project-based managed spend initiative. 

Included are:

  • Case studies across three separate market verticals
  • A step by step guide to frame your business case
  • Two unique ROI calculators
info@fieldglass.com or 312.279.8700

Register for Free Download

Fieldglass, Inc. provides the leading SaaS platform to procure and manage contingent workers, services such as statement of work projects, independent contractors, and specialized talent pools. The highly-configurable product suite provides transparency into the entire workforce and helps companies optimize program performance and make more strategic labor decisions. Backed by proven experience and the industry's largest customer base, Fieldglass helps Global 2000 firms realize greater efficiencies, control spend, improve quality and enforce compliance.


Spend Matters recently interviewed an organization that knew they spent eight or nine figures, depending on the year, with two major global systems implementation and strategic advisory firms. But while they had the dollar amount at the tip of their BI (business intelligence), they had no understanding of what they were spending the money on, whether or not the authorized projects had been competitively sourced, who was spending the dollars in question, how many engagements had been authorized, how many consultants were onsite (or had visited different facilities or had touched sensitive information), which projects were ongoing and how the vendor had performed against specified service levels. Although this example represents an extreme case of opaqueness when engaging consultancies, it’s not uncommon.