Executive Summary
Many B2B organizations depend on complex pricing and rebate programs to protect margins, drive growth, and maintain strategic trade relationships. However, these programs are often managed across disconnected spreadsheets, legacy enterprise resource planning (ERP) modules, and manual processes. As a result, companies face limited visibility into earned revenue, inconsistent calculations, delayed accruals, and increased audit risk, leaving millions in potential margin unrecovered each year. By centralizing pricing execution and rebate management into a unified platform, organizations can become more commercially intelligent.
Enable can provide commercial intelligence through its pricing and rebate management platform, which can help B2B organizations improve margin performance at scale, drive operational efficiency, and reduce financial risk. Enable’s rebate management solution centralizes commercial agreements, automates rebate calculations, and analyzes performance, helping organizations accurately capture and pay rebates while improving collaboration with trading partners. Flintfox, Enable’s pricing management solution, provides a centralized pricing engine that can support real-time pricing execution and improve visibility into margins.
Enable commissioned Forrester Consulting to conduct a Total Economic Impact™ (TEI) study and examine the potential return on investment (ROI) enterprises may realize by deploying Enable.1 The purpose of this study is to provide readers with a framework to evaluate the potential financial impact of Enable on their organizations.
To better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with this investment, Forrester interviewed five decision-makers from four organizations with experience using Enable. For the purposes of this study, Forrester aggregated the experiences of the interviewees and combined the results into a single composite organization, which is a B2B company that generates revenue of $2 billion per year.
Three of the interviewees said their two organizations used Enable’s rebate management solution, while the rest said their organizations were in the early stages of adopting Enable’s Flintfox pricing management solution. This analysis focuses primarily on the experiences of organizations using the rebate management solution. Forrester’s study also includes a spotlight section that highlights insights and experiences from the interviewees whose organizations adopted Flintfox.
Interviewees whose organizations adopted Enable’s rebate management solution described prior environments characterized by fragmented, spreadsheet-driven processes and a lack of a unified view of rebate programs. Rebate programs were typically managed across disparate spreadsheets and individual workflows, requiring significant manual effort to calculate, validate, and monitor rebate incentives. The complexity of rebate agreements, combined with large volumes of transaction data and inconsistent supplier inputs, made it difficult to maintain accurate and consistent processes. As a result, the interviewees’ organizations struggled to track performance, make informed decisions, and fully capture the value of negotiated supplier agreements, leading to missed rebate opportunities and margin leakage.
After the investment in Enable, the interviewees’ organizations standardized and automated rebate management processes. With a centralized system to track rebate agreements and automate calculations, their organizations reduced manual effort, improved accuracy and consistency in calculations, and established a more controlled approach to managing rebate programs. Key results from the investment include increased rebate capture and time savings for teams involved in invoicing and rebate management.
Key Findings
Quantified benefits. Three-year, risk-adjusted present value (PV) quantified benefits for the composite organization include:
-
A 1% increase in rebates earned and collected. The composite organization increases rebates earned and collected by improving the accuracy and completeness of rebate calculations and standardizing agreement tracking. By replacing fragmented and manual spreadsheet-driven processes with a centralized platform, the composite organization reduces calculation errors, captures rebate claims that previously were overlooked, and improves overall visibility into supplier rebate programs. Over three years, the incremental supplier rebates collected are worth $1.6 million for the composite organization.
-
An 85% reduction in rebate invoicing effort. The composite organization improves invoice accuracy and reduces the effort required to prepare and validate rebate invoices by automating rebate calculations. By replacing manual, spreadsheet-driven workflows with a centralized platform, finance teams reduce invoice preparation time, accelerate invoice issuance, and resolve discrepancies with less effort. These improvements enable more timely invoicing with suppliers. Over three years, the productivity savings are worth $67,000 for the composite organization.
-
A 5% productivity improvement for resources involved in managing rebate programs. The composite organization improves productivity for trading managers by centralizing agreements and automating rebate calculations. By replacing fragmented, spreadsheet-driven workflows with a unified platform, teams gain greater oversight and more efficient management of rebate programs, improve visibility and reporting capabilities, and shift time from administrative tasks to higher-value activities such as analysis and supplier value management. Over three years, the productivity savings are worth $87,000 for the composite organization.
Unquantified benefits. Benefits that provide value for the composite organization but are not quantified for this study include:
-
Improved supplier relationships. The composite organization improves collaboration with suppliers by increasing the accuracy and consistency of rebate calculations and invoicing, which reduces disputes and ambiguity in rebate claims. These improvements enable more objective, data-backed discussions with suppliers, allowing teams to resolve discrepancies more efficiently and reduce friction in supplier interactions.
-
Better cashflow efficiency. Automated rebate calculations drive faster invoicing of suppliers. As a result, rebate payments are collected earlier, reducing lag between accrual and collection and improving overall cash flow efficiency.
-
More effective negotiations and purchasing decisions. Increased visibility into rebate agreements and supplier value strengthens the composite organization’s ability to negotiate and make purchasing decisions. With a clearer view of true supplier costs, the composite organization targets purchasing more effectively and supports stronger negotiations, contributing to cost reductions.
-
Reduced financial risk. By centralizing rebate agreements and calculation processes, the composite organization improves contract governance and ensures rebate claims are supported by auditable documentation. This reduces exposure to disputes, incorrect reporting, and potential financial loss from unsupported or poorly documented agreements.
Costs. Three-year, risk-adjusted PV costs for the composite organization include:
-
Licensing and support costs for Enable totaling $397,000. The composite organization incurs licensing costs for using Enable and additional services costs for support provided by Enable.
-
Implementation, training, and ongoing management costs totaling $128,000. The composite organization incurs labor costs associated with implementing the solution, training users, and ongoing efforts to manage and expand capabilities.
The financial analysis that is based on the interviews found that a composite organization experiences benefits of $1.7 million over three years versus costs of $524,000, adding up to a net present value (NPV) of $1.2 million and an ROI of 225%.
Key Statistics
225%
Return on investment (ROI)
$1.7M
Benefits PV
$1.2M
Net present value (NPV)
<6 months
Payback
Benefits (Three-Year)
The Enable Customer Journey
Drivers leading to the Enable investment
Interviews
| Role | Industry | Region | Employees | Revenue |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Chairman; Commercial director |
Wholesaler | EMEA (headquarters: EMEA) | 1,000 | $1 billion |
| Head of commercial finance | Hospitality | EMEA (headquarters: EMEA | 36,000 | $2.4 billion |
| CIO | Beverage | EMEA (headquarters: EMEA | 800 | $636 million |
| Vice president of IT | Electrical and communication distributor | Global (headquarters: US) | 20,000 | $23 billion |
Key Challenges
Interviewees reported that their organizations lacked a central system to store and track trade agreements prior to Enable, relying on primarily spreadsheet-driven processes. They described rebate management environments characterized by fragmented processes, limited visibility, and significant manual effort. These challenges reduced efficiency, increased the risk of errors, and limited the ability of the interviewees’ organizations to capture the full value of supplier rebate agreements. Interviewees noted how their organizations struggled with common challenges, including:
-
Fragmented and manual rebate management processes. Interviewees described highly manual rebate management processes that relied on spreadsheets and individual tracking methods across different teams. Both the commercial director and chairman at a wholesaler reported that trading managers maintained their own agreements and tracking approaches, resulting in inconsistent workflows and calculation methods. As a result, these teams spent significant time manually tracking and calculating rebate entitlements, increasing the likelihood of inconsistencies and errors. The head of commercial finance at a hospitality company shared that their organization struggled with similar challenges due to spreadsheet-based processes and manual methods for monitoring, calculating, and validating rebate entitlements. As a result, rebate management processes were time-intensive and error-prone.
-
Rebate management complexity. Interviewees described rebate management as inherently complex due to high data volumes and variability in contract structures. The head of commercial finance at a hospitality company said that their organization managed millions of transaction-level records and inconsistent supplier data inputs, requiring significant effort to process. Differences in how suppliers reported data further complicated reconciliation and increased the need for manual work. The commercial director at a wholesaler reported that managing hundreds of agreements and thousands of program lines created additional complexity for tracking and validation. This complexity made it difficult to maintain consistent processes and increased the risk of errors.
-
Limited visibility into rebate agreements and performance. Interviewees indicated that their organizations lacked a unified view of their rebate programs and associated metrics. Both the commercial director and the chairman at a wholesaler shared that agreements and purchasing data were stored in disparate locations and formats, reducing visibility into total rebates earned and making it difficult to assess performance across trading managers and suppliers. Leadership at their organization lacked a centralized view of rebate earnings, which limited their ability to measure performance and inform decision-making. The head of commercial finance at a hospitality organization said the absence of structured and standardized data made it challenging to determine whether rebate targets were being met or where opportunities for improvement existed. This lack of visibility restricted decision-making.
-
Margin leakage due to inaccurate and incomplete calculations. Interviewees reported that manual calculations and inconsistent processes led to inaccuracies and missed rebate collections. The head of commercial finance at the hospitality organization noted that rebates were previously under collected sharing, stating, “If you have a sheet that doesn’t capture all the terms, you are leaving stuff on the table.” The same interviewee highlighted that the complexity of rebate terms and data increased the likelihood that spreadsheets failed to capture all entitlements, leading to potential leakage. Interviewees emphasized that without consistent and accurate calculations, their organizations risked leaving rebate value unclaimed. These challenges reduced their ability to fully realize negotiated supplier value.
Composite Organization
Based on the interviews, Forrester constructed a TEI framework, a composite company, and an ROI analysis that illustrates the areas financially affected. The composite organization is representative of the interviewees’ organizations, and it is used to present the aggregate financial analysis in the next section. The composite organization has the following characteristics:
-
Description of composite. The composite organization is a B2B company that generates $2 billion in annual revenue and has over 5,000 employees. The organization has $1 billion in rebatable spend, which is the portion of supplier spend eligible to earn rebates or incentive payments. Of this rebatable spend, it earns and collects $100 million in supplier rebates prior to Enable. The composite organization has a team of eight personnel within its commercial finance team that is responsible for managing trading agreements and two accounts receivable staff that prepare invoices.
-
Deployment characteristics. The composite organization begins using Enable in Year 1 following a six-month implementation period. Over time, the organization continues to onboard broader sets of supplier agreements, expanding coverage across rebate programs and procurement categories.
KEY ASSUMPTIONS
-
$2 billion in annual revenue
-
$1 billion purchasing spend eligible for rebates
-
Eight commercial finance personnel
-
Two accounts receivable staff
Analysis Of Benefits
Quantified benefit data as applied to the composite
Total Benefits
| Ref. | Benefit | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Atr | Incremental supplier rebates collected | $425,000 | $637,500 | $850,000 | $1,912,500 | $1,551,841 |
| Btr | Rebate invoicing productivity savings | $23,665 | $27,326 | $30,987 | $81,977 | $67,378 |
| Ctr | Rebate management productivity savings | $26,557 | $35,410 | $44,262 | $106,230 | $86,663 |
| Total benefits (risk-adjusted) | $475,222 | $700,236 | $925,250 | $2,100,707 | $1,705,882 |
Incremental Supplier Rebates Collected
Evidence and data. Interviewees shared that their organizations improved rebate capture after adopting Enable. They shared the following experiences:
-
Both the commercial director and chairman at a wholesaler reported that Enable improved the accuracy and completeness of rebate calculations by replacing fragmented spreadsheet-based processes for tracking and calculations with a centralized rebate management platform. Prior to Enable implementation, inconsistent tracking across trading managers and manual calculations led to missed or underreported rebates, particularly across lower-end-supplier agreements and complex programs. Through parallel validation, Enable consistently produced higher and more accurate rebate values than legacy methods at the interviewees’ organization, indicating that rebates were previously uncollected. The platform improved their organization’s ability to capture a greater share of eligible rebates by standardizing agreement tracking and reducing omission and calculation errors. As a result, the interviewees’ organization experienced a measurable uplift in rebates earned and collected at an estimated 1% to 3%.
-
The head of commercial finance at a hospitality company reported that Enable increased rebates collected by improving the accuracy of rebate calculations across a highly complex supplier environment. Prior to Enable, large volumes of transaction data and variations in contract terms tracked across disparate spreadsheets required significant manual effort to understand eligible rebate entitlements, increasing the risk of underreported or missed claims. With Enable, their organization improved accuracy in calculated rebate amounts. This helped teams to more effectively identify discrepancies between expected and reported rebate values and challenge underreported supplier amounts. As a result, the interviewee’s organization improved its ability to identify and capture previously uncollected rebates, including more than £1 million recovered from prior periods.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
-
Prior to Enable, the composite organization earns and collects $100 million in rebates from its suppliers.
-
With Enable, the composite organization increases rebates collected by 0.5% in Year 1, 0.75% in Year 2, and 1% in Year 3 with more accurate rebate calculations and better tracking of rebate terms and agreements.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences and the value of the benefit will vary depending on:
-
The maturity of rebate management processes prior to Enable.
-
The degree to which rebates are undercollected prior to Enable.
-
The rate at which an organization’s trade agreements and rebate programs are onboarded into Enable.
-
The quality, completeness, and integration of transactional and supplier data used to calculate rebates.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $1.6 million.
1%
Increase in rebates earned and collected with Enable
Incremental Supplier Rebates Collected
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| A1 | Rebates earned and collected from suppliers prior to Enable | Composite | $100,000,000 | $100,000,000 | $100,000,000 | |
| A2 | Percentage increase in rebates earned and collected attributable to Enable | Interviews | 0.50% | 0.75% | 1.00% | |
| At | Incremental supplier rebates collected | A1*A2 | $500,000 | $750,000 | $1,000,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓15% | |||||
| Atr | Incremental supplier rebates collected (risk-adjusted) | $425,000 | $637,500 | $850,000 | ||
| Three-year total: $1,912,500 | Three-year present value: $1,551,841 | |||||
Rebate Invoicing Productivity Savings
Evidence and data. Interviewees shared the following experiences related to invoicing efficiency and dispute resolution:
-
Both the commercial director and chairman at a wholesaler described a previously manual and time-intensive invoicing process associated with supplier rebates. With Enable, automated calculations and streamlined workflows significantly reduced the time their organization required to prepare and issue invoices for rebate claims. Finance personnel who previously spent approximately three days per invoice cycle were able to complete the same work in roughly half a day. The elimination of manual spreadsheet-based calculations reduced rework and improved consistency across invoice outputs. With these efficiency improvements, their organization accelerated invoicing timelines from a range of approximately three to six months to within two to three weeks.
-
The head of commercial finance at a hospitality company reported that finance personnel at their organization spent less time resolving discrepancies with suppliers, as standardized calculations, documentation, and audit trails reduced the need for manual validation and back-and-forth. As a result, discrepancies were resolved more quickly and with less effort.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
-
Prior to Enable, two finance personnel spend approximately three days per cycle preparing and validating rebate invoices, totaling an estimated 816 hours annually.
-
Enable reduces the effort required for rebate invoicing by 65% in Year 1, 75% in Year 2, and 85% in Year 3.
-
The fully burdened hourly rate for a finance resource is $47.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences and the value of the benefit will vary depending on:
-
The accuracy and maturity of invoicing processes prior to Enable deployment.
-
The volume and frequency of rebates invoicing cycles.
-
The rate and consistency of user adoption across finance teams.
-
The quality of transactional and supplier data integrated into the platform.
-
Variability in labor costs based on factors like location, industry, and experience level.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $67,000.
85%
Reduction in rebate invoicing effort
Rebate Invoicing Productivity Savings
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B1 | Time required for rebate invoicing before Enable (hours) | Interviews | 816 | 816 | 816 | |
| B2 | Reduction in rebate invoicing effort | Interviews | 65% | 75% | 85% | |
| B3 | Time saved on rebate invoicing after Enable (hours) | B1*B2 | 530 | 612 | 694 | |
| B4 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a finance resource | Composite | $47 | $47 | $47 | |
| Bt | Rebate invoicing productivity savings | B3*B4 | $24,910 | $28,764 | $32,618 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓5% | |||||
| Btr | Rebate invoicing productivity savings (risk-adjusted) | $23,665 | $27,326 | $30,987 | ||
| Three-year total: $81,977 | Three-year present value: $67,378 | |||||
Rebate Management Productivity Savings
Evidence and data. The interviewees shared the following experiences regarding how Enable drove more efficient management of rebate programs:
-
The head of commercial finance at a hospitality company said that Enable improved productivity for their commercial teams by reducing manual effort and simplifying rebate management processes. The interviewee’s organization reported a minimum of 5% time savings as contracts, rebate terms, and supporting data were centralized in a single system, replacing disparate spreadsheets and files. Automated accrual calculations and reporting reduced the effort required to track rebate programs and accruals. These changes reduced the need for teams to manually reconcile data and allowed them to focus more on analysis and optimizing supplier performance and strategies.
-
Both the commercial director and the chairman at a wholesaler reported that Enable improved productivity at their organization by centralizing supplier agreements and replacing disparate spreadsheets and individual tracking methods with a unified system. Automating rebate and retro calculations reduced the need for manual calculation and reconciliation across trading managers, allowing them to operate with greater consistency and less administrative effort. Leadership gained automated reporting and visibility into performance across suppliers and agreements, improving oversight and enabling more efficient management of rebate programs. As a result, trading managers were able to shift focus away from reconciling data and toward higher-value activities such as analysis and supplier engagement.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
-
The composite organization has eight personnel within the commercial finance team managing rebate programs.
-
Enable improves productivity by 3% in Year 1, 4% in Year 2, and 5% in Year 3.
-
The fully burdened hourly rate for a commercial finance resource is $56.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences and the value of the benefit will vary depending on:
-
The maturity of an organization’s rebate management processes prior to Enable.
-
Adoption and process change across teams.
-
Data quality.
-
The volume and scale or rebate programs.
-
Variability in labor costs based on geography, industry, and experience level.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this benefit downward by 5%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $87,000.
5%
Rebate management productivity improvement
Rebate Management Productivity Savings
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| C1 | Personnel involved in managing rebate programs | Composite | 8 | 8 | 8 | |
| C2 | Productivity improvement attributable to Enable | Interviews | 3% | 4% | 5% | |
| C3 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a resource involved in managing rebates | Composite | $56 | $56 | $56 | |
| Ct | Rebate management productivity savings | C1*C2*C3*2080 | $27,955 | $37,274 | $46,592 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↓5% | |||||
| Ctr | Rebate management productivity savings (risk-adjusted) | $26,557 | $35,410 | $44,262 | ||
| Three-year total: $106,230 | Three-year present value: $86,663 | |||||
Unquantified Benefits
Interviewees mentioned the following additional benefits that their organizations experienced but were not able to quantify:
-
Improved supplier relationships. Interviewees reported that Enable improved collaboration with suppliers by facilitating more timely invoicing and reducing disputes due to inaccuracies. The commercial director at a wholesaler noted that more consistent calculation and invoicing processes reduced friction associated with delayed rebate claims. The head of commercial finance at a hospitality organization indicated that better audit trails helped teams resolve discrepancies more quickly and shift from arguing over historical calculations to forward‑looking planning.
-
Better cashflow efficiency. The commercial director at a wholesaler reported that faster and more consistent invoicing improved cash flow timing by reducing delays between earning and billing rebates. They reported that invoicing timelines improved from several months to just a few weeks, resulting in earlier collection of rebate payments and a positive impact on cash flow.
-
More effective negotiations and purchasing decisions. The head of commercial finance at a hospitality organization highlighted that centralized visibility into rebate agreements and supplier performance enabled more effective negotiations and purchasing decisions. With a clearer understanding of true supplier costs and visibility over rebate-related data, their teams were better positioned to analyze supplier agreements. This allowed their organization to make more targeted purchasing decisions and support more effective supplier negotiations. The interviewee noted that these improvements contributed to meaningful cost reductions estimated to be worth millions of dollars annually.
-
Reduced financial risk. The head of commercial finance at a hospitality organization said that centralizing rebate agreements and calculations helped reduce financial risk by ensuring that rebate claims were supported by structured, auditable documentation. Prior to Enable, inconsistent contract storage and informal agreement tracking created exposure to disputes, particularly when rebate entitlements could not be tied back to signed agreements. The head of commercial finance noted that with improved contract governance and visibility, their organization reduced the risk of incorrect reporting and supplier challenges to historical rebate claims. The interviewee noted that this capability was critical in avoiding material financial exposure, including instances where rebates could not be substantiated due to missing or improperly documented agreements.
Flexibility
The value of flexibility is unique to each customer. There are multiple scenarios in which a customer might implement Enable and later realize additional uses and business opportunities, including:
-
Pricing and rebate optimization with Flintfox. Interviewees shared that they saw opportunities to leverage Enable’s rebate management capabilities alongside the Flintfox pricing management product. For example, the head of commercial finance at a hospitality organization said integrating rebate management with pricing capabilities represented an opportunity to enhance commercial decision-making in the future. They noted that, while rebate visibility provides insight into supplier costs and value, combining this data with pricing data could help their organization optimize pricing decisions and margins.
-
Expansion into advanced analytics and commercial intelligence. As the interviewees’ organizations matured their use of the platform, they had the opportunity to expand into advanced analytics and forecasting capabilities to further optimize rebate and supplier strategies. Interviewees noted that while current usage focused on improving calculation accuracy and visibility, having a structured data foundation enabled future use cases such as gap analysis across suppliers, performance benchmarking, and predictive modeling of rebate outcomes.
Flexibility would also be quantified when evaluated as part of a specific project (described in more detail in Total Economic Impact Approach).
Interview Spotlight: Customer Experiences With Enable’s Flintfox Solution
To understand the impact of Enable’s Flintfox pricing management solution, Forrester interviewed leaders at two organizations: the vice president of IT at a large global electrical and communication distributor and a CIO at a beverage company. The interviewees’ organizations implemented Flintfox to address increasingly complex pricing and trade promotion management requirements within broader transformation initiatives.
The vice president of IT at the electrical and communication distribution company shared that Flintfox was adopted during a large-scale digital transformation initiative following years of growth through acquisitions, which left pricing activities spread across dozens of legacy systems. Contracts, product information, and pricing data were distributed across systems and supported by a mix of homegrown tools, spreadsheets, and manual processes, making it difficult to maintain pricing consistency across systems and customer channels.
The CIO at the beverage company said their organization implemented Flintfox as part of a broader ERP transformation. Prior to Flintfox, pricing and promotions were managed through spreadsheets and an internally developed tool, which limited visibility into trade spend and made it difficult to track accruals and accurately forecast invoices. Increasing complexity in pricing structures and promotional investments created the need for a more standardized approach across markets.
Both interviewees’ organizations experienced similar challenges prior to implementing Flintfox, including a lack of centralized management of pricing, trade agreements, and promotional activities. Fragmented systems and manual processes increased the risk of errors and reduced operational efficiency across workflows such as quoting, accruals, claims, and invoicing. The vice president of IT noted that inconsistent pricing and limited visibility into special pricing agreements made it difficult to consistently apply pricing and leverage special pricing agreements, while the beverage manufacturer emphasized challenges in managing the lifecycle of promotions and ensuring accurate accrual forecasts.
Both interviewees said their organizations selected Flintfox to address these challenges, although their specific evaluation criteria differed. The vice president of IT at the distribution company said their organization selected Flintfox for its ability to support complex distribution pricing models — particularly its ability to manage special pricing agreements and model margin and sales impacts for potential pricing decisions. The CIO said their beverage manufacturer selected Flintfox due to its ability to integrate with and augment its ERP system and provide more sophisticated pricing and trade promotion management capabilities.
The CIO at the beverage manufacturer reported that based on their organization’s initial deployment, Flintfox provided greater visibility into trade spend and promotional activities, enabling their organization to more accurately track promotions and associated accruals. This provided greater confidence in financial reporting and allowed their organization to more accurately estimate expected invoices, improving the reconciliation of accruals with retailer invoices and alignment between planned and actual trade spend. They noted that commercial teams managing trade promotions experienced more efficient workflows, as accrual calculations and tracking became more accurate within the system, improving the process of reconciling promotional activity with invoices. The CIO said that as Flintfox is deployed more widely across the organization, they expect the solution to enable better decision-making, forecasting, and optimization of trade spend. They shared: “Once fully implemented, this will give us real confidence in understanding our trade spend and making better decisions about how to deploy it effectively. It’s not just about growing revenue, but managing that growth at the right margin, ensuring trade promotions deliver value. Over time, it should also enable our teams to better understand how promotions perform and allocate investment more efficiently.”
The vice president of IT at the distribution company noted that their organization was in the early stages of deploying Flintfox and described how more centralized management of pricing and special pricing agreements had improved visibility, increased consistency in pricing execution, and strengthened governance and control. By consolidating pricing processes from multiple systems, tools, and spreadsheets into a centralized platform, the interviewee’s organization gained greater visibility into special pricing agreements, pricing rules, and how pricing is applied across customers and locations. Flintfox’s unified pricing engine reduced inconsistencies in pricing across their organization’s systems and channels, helping ensure that customer pricing was applied consistently. The interviewee reported that pricing teams reduced reliance on spreadsheets and manual processes, spending less time reconciling data and resolving inconsistencies. As a result, the interviewee estimated time savings for initial users of 10%. Looking ahead, the vice president of IT saw opportunities with Flintfox to expand the use of pricing guardrails such as cost thresholds to protect margin, improve selection and utilization of special pricing agreements, and further automate claims and accrual processes to strengthen working capital and reduce manual effort.
Analysis Of Costs
Quantified cost data as applied to the composite
Total Costs
| Ref. | Cost | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dtr | Enable licensing and support costs | $0 | $159,500 | $159,500 | $159,500 | $478,500 | $396,653 |
| Etr | Implementation, training, and ongoing management | $75,969 | $20,832 | $20,832 | $20,832 | $138,466 | $127,776 |
| Total costs (risk-adjusted) | $75,969 | $180,332 | $180,332 | $180,332 | $616,966 | $524,429 |
Enable Licensing And Support Costs
Evidence and data. The interviewees’ organizations incurred licensing costs for Enable with support and implementation services typically included within the overall contract structure. Enable pricing is based on organizational characteristics such as revenue, addressable rebate volume, number of pricing SKUs, and overall scale of operations. Pricing may vary. Contact Enable for additional details.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the composite organization incurs $145,000 in licensing and support costs for Enable each year.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences and the value of the cost will vary depending on:
-
The size and scale of the organization, including revenue and rebate volume, which directly influence licensing costs.
-
The number of pricing SKUs and complexity of rebate programs managed within the platform.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 10%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $397,000.
Enable Licensing And Support Costs
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| D1 | Enable licensing and support costs | Composite | $145,000 | $145,000 | $145,000 | |
| Dt | Enable licensing and support costs | D1 | $145,000 | $145,000 | $145,000 | |
| Risk adjustment | ↑10% | |||||
| Dtr | Enable licensing and support costs (risk-adjusted) | $0 | $159,500 | $159,500 | $159,500 | |
| Three-year total: $478,500 | Three-year present value: $396,653 | |||||
Implementation, Training, And Ongoing Management
Evidence and data. Interviewees shared the following regarding implementation, training, and ongoing management related to Enable:
-
Both the commercial director and chairman at a wholesaler reported that Enable was implemented over approximately six months. The implementation involved a cross-functional team that included representatives from their organization’s trading, finance, and IT teams. Trading team resources contributed approximately 3 to 4 hours per week primarily focused on defining and onboarding supplier agreements and rebate terms, while the finance team had lighter involvement of 1 hour per week that was primarily focused on defining invoice requirements. IT played a role during the early stages of the project, dedicating up to 6 hours per week to integration and data setup before transitioning to a lower level of ongoing support. Integration focused on connecting existing systems, such as ERP, to establish data feeds to support rebate calculations and invoicing. The interviewees said that their organization worked closely with Enable during the implementation through regular working sessions and project coordination, with Enable’s services team supporting configuration and rollout. They also shared that trading and finance teams participated in several 1-hour training sessions delivered through a combination of vendor-led sessions and ongoing refreshers. Following implementation, ongoing management was largely handled by users, with minimal incremental effort required from IT.
-
The head of commercial finance at a hospitality organization reported that Enable was implemented over an initial period of approximately three to four months, followed by a phased rollout as contracts and data were progressively onboarded into the platform. Implementation efforts involved a cross-functional team, including data specialists, procurement teams, contract managers, finance resources, and senior leadership. Procurement and contract teams were responsible for onboarding and structuring agreements, while data and finance teams focused on validating inputs and rebate calculations. Integration efforts centered on enabling data flows into the platform, with the interviewee’s organization noting that data quality and standardization required significant internal effort. The interviewee emphasized that Enable provided support in structuring contracts within the platform and noted that ongoing work to standardize data and fully leverage platform features has required continued internal effort.
Modeling and assumptions. Based on the interviews, Forrester assumes the following about the composite organization:
-
The composite organization requires 1,000 hours of internal labor across trading, finance, IT, and leadership resources to implement Enable.
-
The fully burdened hourly rate for a resource involved in implementation, ongoing management, and platform enhancements is $64.
-
Eight trading managers and two finance personnel participate in Enable training. During the initial implementation, each user completes 4 hours of training, followed by 1 hour of refresher training annually in Years 1 through 3.
-
The fully burdened hourly rate for an end user is $52.
-
Ongoing management and platform enhancements require approximately 275 hours annually in Years 1 through 3.
Risks. Forrester recognizes that these results may not be representative of all experiences and the value of the cost will vary depending on:
-
The volume and complexity of trade agreements.
-
Data integration requirements.
-
Variations in labor costs based on factors such as location, industry, and experience level.
-
The scope of required ongoing management activities and the extent of platform feature expansion over time.
Results. To account for these risks, Forrester adjusted this cost upward by 15%, yielding a three-year, risk-adjusted total PV (discounted at 10%) of $128,000.
Implementation, Training, And Ongoing Management
| Ref. | Metric | Source | Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| E1 | Time dedicated to implementation (hours) | Interviews | 1,000 | |||
| E2 | Average fully burdened hourly rate for a resource dedicated to implementation, ongoing management, and enhancements | Composite | $64 | $64 | $64 | $64 |
| E3 | Subtotal: Implementation labor costs | E1*E2 | $64,000 | $0 | $0 | $0 |
| E4 | Personnel trained | Composite | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| E5 | Hours of training per user | Interviews | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 |
| E6 | Fully burdened hourly rate for a user undergoing training | Composite | $52 | $52 | $52 | $52 |
| E7 | Subtotal: Training costs | E4*E5*E6 | $2,060 | $515 | $515 | $515 |
| E8 | Time dedicated to ongoing management and enhancement (hours) | Interviews | 275 | 275 | 275 | |
| E9 | Subtotal: Ongoing management labor | E8*E2 | $0 | $17,600 | $17,600 | $17,600 |
| Et | Implementation, training, and ongoing management | E3+E7+E9 | $66,060 | $18,115 | $18,115 | $18,115 |
| Risk adjustment | ↑15% | |||||
| Etr | Implementation, training, and ongoing management (risk-adjusted) | $75,969 | $20,832 | $20,832 | $20,832 | |
| Three-year total: $138,466 | Three-year present value: $127,776 | |||||
Financial Summary
Consolidated Three-Year, Risk-Adjusted Metrics
Cash Flow Chart (Risk-Adjusted)
Cash Flow Analysis (Risk-Adjusted)
| Initial | Year 1 | Year 2 | Year 3 | Total | Present Value | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Total costs | ($75,969) | ($180,332) | ($180,332) | ($180,332) | ($616,966) | ($524,429) |
| Total benefits | $0 | $475,222 | $700,236 | $925,250 | $2,100,707 | $1,705,882 |
| Net benefits | ($75,969) | $294,890 | $519,904 | $744,917 | $1,483,742 | $1,181,453 |
| ROI | 225% | |||||
| Payback period (months) | <6 months |
Please Note
The financial results calculated in the Benefits and Costs sections can be used to determine the ROI, NPV, and payback period for the composite organization’s investment. Forrester assumes a yearly discount rate of 10% for this analysis.
These risk-adjusted ROI, NPV, and payback period values are determined by applying risk-adjustment factors to the unadjusted results in each Benefit and Cost section.
The initial investment column contains costs incurred at “time 0” or at the beginning of Year 1 that are not discounted. All other cash flows are discounted using the discount rate at the end of the year. PV calculations are calculated for each total cost and benefit estimate. NPV calculations in the summary tables are the sum of the initial investment and the discounted cash flows in each year. Sums and present value calculations of the Total Benefits, Total Costs, and Cash Flow tables may not exactly add up, as some rounding may occur.
From the information provided in the interviews, Forrester constructed a Total Economic Impact™ framework for those organizations considering an investment in Enable.
The objective of the framework is to identify the cost, benefit, flexibility, and risk factors that affect the investment decision. Forrester took a multistep approach to evaluate the impact that Enable can have on an organization.
Due Diligence
Interviewed Enable stakeholders and Forrester analysts to gather data relative to Enable.
Interviews
Interviewed four decision-makers at organizations using Enable to obtain data about costs, benefits, and risks.
Composite Organization
Designed a composite organization based on characteristics of the interviewees’ organizations.
Financial Model Framework
Constructed a financial model representative of the interviews using the TEI methodology and risk-adjusted the financial model based on issues and concerns of the interviewees.
Case Study
Employed four fundamental elements of TEI in modeling the investment impact: benefits, costs, flexibility, and risks. Given the increasing sophistication of ROI analyses related to IT investments, Forrester’s TEI methodology provides a complete picture of the total economic impact of purchase decisions. Please see Appendix A for additional information on the TEI methodology.
Total Economic Impact Approach
Benefits
Benefits represent the value the solution delivers to the business. The TEI methodology places equal weight on the measure of benefits and costs, allowing for a full examination of the solution’s effect on the entire organization.
Costs
Costs comprise all expenses necessary to deliver the proposed value, or benefits, of the solution. The methodology captures implementation and ongoing costs associated with the solution.
Flexibility
Flexibility represents the strategic value that can be obtained for some future additional investment building on top of the initial investment already made. The ability to capture that benefit has a PV that can be estimated.
Risks
Risks measure the uncertainty of benefit and cost estimates given: 1) the likelihood that estimates will meet original projections and 2) the likelihood that estimates will be tracked over time. TEI risk factors are based on “triangular distribution.”
Financial Terminology
Present value (PV)
The present or current value of (discounted) cost and benefit estimates given at an interest rate (the discount rate). The PVs of costs and benefits feed into the total NPV of cash flows.
Net present value (NPV)
The present or current value of (discounted) future net cash flows given an interest rate (the discount rate). A positive project NPV normally indicates that the investment should be made unless other projects have higher NPVs.
Return on investment (ROI)
A project’s expected return in percentage terms. ROI is calculated by dividing net benefits (benefits less costs) by costs.
Discount rate
The interest rate used in cash flow analysis to take into account the time value of money. Organizations typically use discount rates between 8% and 16%.
Payback
The breakeven point for an investment. This is the point in time at which net benefits (benefits minus costs) equal initial investment or cost.
Appendix A
Total Economic Impact
Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Appendix B
Endnotes
1 Total Economic Impact is a methodology developed by Forrester Research that enhances a company’s technology decision-making processes and assists solution providers in communicating their value proposition to clients. The TEI methodology helps companies demonstrate, justify, and realize the tangible value of business and technology initiatives to both senior management and other key stakeholders.
Disclosures
Readers should be aware of the following:
This study is commissioned by Enable and delivered by Forrester Consulting. It is not meant to be used as a competitive analysis.
Forrester makes no assumptions as to the potential ROI that other organizations will receive. Forrester strongly advises that readers use their own estimates within the framework provided in the study to determine the appropriateness of an investment in Enable. For any interactive functionality, the intent is for the questions to solicit inputs specific to a prospect's business. Forrester believes that this analysis is representative of what companies may achieve with Enable based on the inputs provided and any assumptions made. Forrester does not endorse Enable or its offerings. Although great care has been taken to ensure the accuracy and completeness of this model, Enable and Forrester Research are unable to accept any legal responsibility for any actions taken on the basis of the information contained herein. The interactive tool is provided ‘AS IS,’ and Forrester and Enable make no warranties of any kind.
Enable reviewed and provided feedback to Forrester, but Forrester maintains editorial control over the study and its findings and does not accept changes to the study that contradict Forrester’s findings or obscure the meaning of the study.
Enable provided the customer names for the interviews but did not participate in the interviews.
Consulting Team:
Kara Luk
Published
July 2026
PDF