The Duplicate Spend Heatmap
Most organisations unknowingly pay twice for the same outcomes. A one-page Duplicate Spend Heatmap reveals overlap fast and lets leaders decide to keep, consolidate, or retire with under‑12‑month payback. Within 90 days you should see run‑rate savings, faster release lead‑times, and fewer audit issues.
The problem
Most organisations quietly pay twice for the same outcome. Different teams buy similar tools, run parallel systems, or maintain look‑alike processes. Locally it feels small; in the aggregate it inflates cost, slows releases, and increases audit pain. Slide decks don’t catch it because duplication hides in the day‑to‑day. The fix is a single page: the Duplicate Spend Heatmap—a simple grid that shows where we fund the same thing more than once, and a rule for what to do next: keep, consolidate, or retire.
What is the Duplicate Spend Heatmap?
It’s a straightforward grid that puts two questions in the same frame: “What outcomes do we deliver?” and “Who are we paying—or maintaining—so that happens?” Rows list the handful of business capabilities in a domain such as on-boarding, claims, or payments. Columns list the providers we spend on: systems, vendors, in‑house tools, or regional teams. Where a provider contributes to a capability, mark an X. Anywhere a row carries more than one X doing the same job, you’ve found duplication worth deciding on. Rank those candidates with a simple rule: Impact = Value + Risk − Cost.
Why leaders should care
Removing duplication is not just cost discipline; it’s an accelerator. First, you free run‑rate spend—fewer licenses, environments, and support contracts. Second, you speed change—fewer variants to test and maintain, simpler integration, faster releases. Third, you reduce risk—fewer failure points, cleaner reconciliations, and consistent controls. Cutting duplication removes friction customers feel.
Build it in a week
Day 1 (Scope): Pick one domain with visible spend and pain—e.g., onboarding, claims, payments—and name 8–12 capabilities that matter there.
Days 2–3 (List providers): Collect the systems, vendors, in‑house tools, and regional builds delivering those capabilities.
Day 4 (Mark the X’s): Run a short workshop with Operations, Product, Technology, and Finance. Mark where each provider contributes. Credible is enough; perfection can wait.
Day 5 (Rank & propose): For each duplicated row, score Value, Cost/Effort, and Risk Reduction (1–5). Use Impact = Value + Risk − Cost to create a short list for decision.
A scannable view (extract)
Where a capability has multiple X’s, you’re paying for the same job more than once.
Decide with a simple pattern
For each duplicated capability, present three options with one‑line pros/cons and a payback view: Keep (no change), Consolidate (standardise on the best path, retire the rest), or Retire (if genuinely not needed). Rank with Impact = Value + Risk − Cost. Fund consolidations with under‑12‑month payback or clear risk closure. Freeze new spend in the duplicated area until the decision, with 90‑day, named‑owner exceptions that auto‑escalate when they expire.
Don’t forget people
Where roles are affected by consolidation, publish a simple transition plan—who moves where, by when. Addressing the human side early prevents the most common blocker to decommissioning.
What good looks like (examples)
Onboarding (Bank/Fintech): The heatmap revealed three identity verification vendors and two address‑check tools. Leaders standardised on one of each and scheduled the others for decommission. Within 90 days vendor run‑rate fell, median onboarding time dropped by roughly a quarter, and an audit finding on inconsistent checks was closed.
Claims (Insurance): Two intake tools plus a shared mailbox handled the same claim types. Consolidating onto one intake platform with rules as a shared service retired three systems and reduced claim cycle time by around 20%, with measurable leakage reduction.
Notifications (Any sector): Email/SMS were split across a channel team and a product team using different suppliers. Standardising on one platform improved reliability, aligned templates, and lowered per‑message cost.
Who leads what
The Business Architect owns the grid and the decision pack: frames the domain and capabilities, convenes the working session to mark X’s, drafts the keep/consolidate/retire options with payback, and shepherds the decommission plan. Product and Engineering deliver the changes; Finance validates savings; Risk and Audit confirm control improvements; Operations sponsors adoption.
Prove it’s not theatre
Publish a one‑page before/after at 30, 90, and 180 days. Track run‑rate saved (licences, infrastructure, support), systems/vendors actually switched off (link to decommission record), release lead‑time before/after, incidents or reconciliation breaks closed, audit findings closed, and adoption—what percentage of new demand now flows through the chosen standard. If adoption lags, remove the blockers and re‑publish next month.
Call to action
Pick one domain this week—onboarding, claims, payments, or notifications. Build the heatmap in five days. Bring two consolidation decisions with under‑12‑month payback to governance and freeze net‑new requests in those areas until the decision is made. Switch off what you don’t need and publish the before/after.
Three X’s on a page won’t win design awards, but they will save real money, speed delivery, and prove that architecture changes outcomes now—not next year.
