Firm Removes USD 220K of Duplicate SaaS Tools

This case study shows how one firm removes USD 220K of duplicate SaaS tools. It is an anonymised composite from our mid market work, showing how buyer side stack rationalization turned scattered, overlapping contracts into a single annual saving, with no loss of tools people actually relied on.

This case study of a firm that removed USD 220K of duplicate SaaS tools is an anonymised composite, drawn from patterns we see repeatedly in mid market engagements. It shows how stack rationalization turns scattered, overlapping contracts into a single annual saving without taking away tools people rely on.

It illustrates our SaaS stack rationalization service in practice and connects to the wider digital workplace cost optimization program.

Situation

A professional services firm of roughly 900 employees across three offices had grown quickly, and its software stack had grown with it, team by team. Finance saw a collaboration and content spend that rose every year and could not easily explain why. There was no single owner of the portfolio and no map of what overlapped. The brief to us was simple: find the waste without disrupting client work.

The overspend found

The assessment grouped every application by the job it did, and the duplication was immediate. The firm ran two separate video meeting platforms while already paying for meetings inside its Microsoft 365 estate. Chat was split across an owned tool and a standalone product. File storage was spread across three services. A standalone electronic signing tool sat next to signing capability the firm already held. Inactive seats added another layer of dormant cost on top.

Individually each contract looked defensible. Mapped together, the redundant tooling came to about USD 220K a year, most of it duplicating capability the firm already owned inside Microsoft 365.

Approach

We worked the savings in order rather than rushing to cancel. First we layered usage data over the inventory, so every decision rested on evidence rather than assumption. Tools with few active users and a capable owned replacement became clear candidates to retire. Tools that were deeply embedded in client delivery were kept, even where they overlapped on paper.

Next we built a consolidation plan anchored on platforms the firm already paid for. Meetings and chat moved onto Microsoft 365. Storage consolidated onto the owned platform with a managed migration. Standalone signing was replaced by capability already in the estate for the bulk of use cases, with a small retained license for specialist needs. Crucially, we sequenced every retirement to a renewal date, so the firm cancelled before each contract rolled over rather than paying to break it early. We tracked auto renewal notice windows so none lapsed by default.

Outcome: the firm removes USD 220K of duplicate SaaS tools

Across two quarters the firm removed about USD 220K in annual duplicate tooling spend. Several hundred inactive and redundant seats were reclaimed in the process. Four overlapping product categories were consolidated to one tool each, mostly onto Microsoft 365. User disruption was minimal, because every retired tool had a capable replacement already in daily use, and the help desk reported fewer tools to support rather than more friction.

Beyond the headline saving, the firm gained a single view of its collaboration and content stack and a renewal calendar it had never had before.

Lessons for buyers

Three lessons carry across most mid market stacks. First, duplication hides in plain sight because each contract is reviewed alone, never as a category. Second, the cheapest replacement is almost always a platform you already own, so consolidation onto Microsoft 365 should be the first option tested. Third, timing the cancellation to the renewal date is what converts a plan into cash, so the work has to be sequenced, not rushed.

To keep the saving permanent, the firm adopted a lightweight intake process, checking new requests against owned capability before purchase. See the method in tool rationalization and the discipline behind it in the SaaS renewal negotiation playbook. More outcomes are in the case study library.

Frequently asked questions

Is this a real named client?

No. This is an anonymised composite built from patterns we see repeatedly in mid market engagements. The numbers reflect realistic outcomes for the situation described, not a single named company.

How did duplicate tools reach USD 220K?

Duplication spread across several categories at once: two video platforms, overlapping chat, multiple storage products, and a standalone signing tool. No single line looked alarming, but together the redundant contracts reached roughly USD 220K a year.

How long did the consolidation take?

The assessment and plan took a few weeks. Execution aligned to renewal dates over the following two quarters, so the firm cancelled redundant contracts before each renewed rather than paying to exit early.

Did users lose tools they relied on?

No. Each retired tool had a capable replacement the firm already owned, mostly inside Microsoft 365. Where a tool was deeply embedded with no equal substitute, it was kept.

What stopped the duplication returning?

A lightweight intake and review process. New software requests are now checked against what the firm already owns before purchase, supported by a simple SaaS management routine.

Could our firm see similar results?

If your stack grew through independent team purchases, there is a strong chance it carries overlap. A spend assessment quantifies it. Outcomes vary, so we measure your own stack rather than promise a fixed figure.

Find the duplicate tools in your stack

Book a free digital workplace spend assessment and we will quantify your overlap the way we did here.

Request your free assessment

Workplace Spend Experts is an independent, buyer side advisory firm. We are not a vendor or reseller, take no vendor commission, and are paid only by the buyer. This page is commercial and cost advisory and is not legal advice; for contract interpretation consult your own counsel. Vendor pricing and plan mechanics change often, so any figures carry an as of date.