Scientists rarely bypass procurement because they want to ignore the rules. More often, they need an exact reagent, assay, instrument part, or specialist supplier, and the approved route makes that item difficult to find or slow to order.
When researchers buy outside the approved process, the result is maverick spend. For procurement, the answer is not simply tighter enforcement. It is a purchasing experience that gives scientists the access and speed they need while keeping spend visible and governed.
Scientific products are not interchangeable office supplies. Researchers may require a specific concentration, grade, formulation, clone, pack size, or manufacturer because the choice can affect an experiment. A peer-reviewed study of research rigor and reproducibility notes the importance of validated reagents and well-documented experiments in producing reliable results.
At the same time, R&D purchasing spans a long tail of specialized products and suppliers. Needs can change quickly as protocols evolve, results redirect a project, or an experiment must be repeated. Standard catalogs and rigid workflows often struggle to keep up.
This is why life sciences procurement must balance control with scientific choice. If the approved route cannot support both, researchers will find another route.
These are adoption problems as much as policy problems. If a process repeatedly sends scientists elsewhere, procurement needs to examine the process, not only the purchase.
An off-contract order may cost more than the negotiated option, but the broader effect is often more significant. Procurement loses visibility into demand. Finance must reconcile more suppliers and invoices. Similar purchases become harder to combine, and teams may repeat supplier onboarding or negotiate from incomplete data.
Start by comparing purchasing activity with contracts, preferred suppliers, approval rules, and established buying channels. Useful signals include:
Do not stop at the total. Segment the results by site, department, category, supplier, and reason for exception. A high number of off-contract purchases in one category may point to missing catalog coverage. A cluster at one site may indicate a workflow or training issue. The pattern usually says more than the percentage alone.
AI can support this work without making purchasing decisions on its own. It can interpret a researcher's request in plain language, surface preferred products, identify possible alternatives, route an exception, or flag unusual purchasing patterns for review. APQC's review of AI in procurement includes spend analysis, duplicate-purchase detection, and identification of non-compliant suppliers among the practical use cases.
A program is not successful if off-contract spend falls but ordering takes longer. Track adoption and research support alongside financial control:
The goal is not perfect compliance on paper. It is an approved purchasing path that works in the real world of pharmaceutical R&D. When researchers can find the exact product, use the right supplier, request a legitimate exception, and keep work moving, procurement gains control because the process earns adoption.