Telecom operators have long been expected to do several difficult things at once: modernise networks, safeguard critical infrastructure, keep supplier ecosystems resilient and stay ahead of regulatory and security demands, all while holding the line on spending. In that environment, procurement is increasingly being judged not just on price, but on whether it can help the business absorb shocks and keep services running.
That is why tail spend is attracting more attention. Ofte...
Continue Reading This Article
Enjoy this article as well as all of our content, including reports, news, tips and more.
By registering or signing into your SRM Today account, you agree to SRM Today's Terms of Use and consent to the processing of your personal information as described in our Privacy Policy.
n described as non-strategic spend, it typically accounts for about a fifth of procurement outlay, yet it can generate the vast majority of supplier transactions. It covers thousands of relatively small purchases, from software and field engineering to facilities management, testing, logistics and local services. Individually, these suppliers may seem minor. Collectively, they can form a sprawling and difficult-to-track network.
Telecoms’ fragmented supplier base can hide risks that remain invisible in everyday operations. According to industry commentary from Nomia and Telecom Ramblings, suppliers for lower-value purchases often enter the organisation through local or decentralised buying decisions, which means their records may end up scattered across finance systems, procurement tools, contract stores, spreadsheets and business units. That arrangement can be manageable until a crisis hits.
When an audit, cyber incident, regulatory review, supplier failure or geopolitical disruption arrives, the gaps become far more important. Operators may need to know which vendors support critical infrastructure, which contracts are current, where substitutions exist and which suppliers could be exposed to sanctions, instability or disruption in broader supply chains. Answering those questions quickly is much easier when the business has a single, connected view of supplier activity.
For that reason, some operators are beginning to treat procurement as a data problem as much as a sourcing one. A system of record for procurement can bring together onboarding details, contracts, approvals, compliance documents, transaction data, certifications and performance records. By linking information already held across procurement and finance systems, it can give teams a more reliable picture of what is being bought, from whom and under what terms.
The case for better visibility is not simply administrative. It affects audit readiness, supplier consolidation, duplicate vendor detection and response times when circumstances change. It also helps procurement, finance, legal, compliance and operations teams work from the same dataset rather than from disconnected records that may not tell the same story.
Artificial intelligence is increasingly part of that shift. AI tools can process large volumes of supplier and transaction data, classify vendors, flag anomalies, identify missing paperwork and support onboarding. In a sector dealing with thousands of suppliers, that kind of automation can reduce manual effort and make controls more consistent.
But the strongest models still depend on human judgement. Procurement decisions are shaped by commercial relationships, local market conditions, contractual nuance, operational priorities and regulatory interpretation, none of which can be captured fully by an algorithm. An AI system may surface a supplier that looks attractive on paper, while an experienced procurement professional may already know that delivery performance has been weak or that regional tensions make the arrangement more fragile than it appears.
That is why a number of operators are moving towards models that combine AI-enabled tools with experienced procurement teams. The aim is to extend capability without losing oversight, particularly in lower-value categories where fragmented purchasing can otherwise drift beyond central control. In practice, that can free internal teams to focus on strategic sourcing, supplier innovation and higher-value negotiations, while ensuring the tail is governed more consistently.
The renewed focus on tail spend reflects a broader change in thinking. What was once treated as a minor operational nuisance is now increasingly seen as part of business resilience. In a sector exposed to cybersecurity threats, geopolitical uncertainty, regulatory pressure and supply disruption, weak visibility over the supplier base is no longer just inefficient. It is a risk.
For telecom operators, the lesson is becoming clearer: managing tail spend well is not only about cutting costs. It is about strengthening governance, improving responsiveness and building supplier ecosystems that can withstand disruption when it matters most.
Source: Noah Wire Services
