Contracting challenges are often structural, not contractual
In many organisations, contracting challenges are not primarily related to the contracts themselves, but to how contract information is handled across systems and functions. Contracts often exist alongside CRM platforms, ERP systems, e-signature tools, and reporting environments rather than being structurally connected to them. This separation affects how contract data is used and, over time, limits the organisation’s ability to scale commercial and operational activities in a controlled way.
This observation aligns with analyst research from Forrester, which describes contract lifecycle management (CLM) not as a standalone system, but as a capability that derives much of its value from integration with adjacent enterprise platforms. When contracts are treated primarily as documents rather than as connected data, their operational relevance decreases.
Improvements tend to focus on creation rather than execution
A significant share of contracting initiatives focuses on improving contract creation. Standardised templates, clearer approval flows, and digital signing have contributed to more efficient processes at the early stages of the contract lifecycle. These improvements are important, but they largely address the point of agreement rather than the period in which contracts are executed, monitored, and renewed.
The operational impact of contracting becomes more apparent after signature. At this stage, contracts are expected to inform revenue forecasting, supplier commitments, compliance monitoring, renewal planning, and performance analysis. Forrester’s analysis of enterprise contracting consistently highlights this post-signature phase as the point where many organisations struggle to operationalise contract data across systems and functions. When that data is not integrated into the environments where decisions are made, organisations compensate through manual work, parallel spreadsheets, and informal coordination between teams.
Fragmented contract data limits scalability
As organisations grow, these challenges tend to increase. Manual handling and fragmented contract data may be manageable at lower volumes, but they become less reliable as transaction complexity and scale increase. Without integration, it becomes difficult to maintain consistency, traceability, and accountability across the contract lifecycle. From an analyst perspective, this lack of structural integration is a key reason why contracting often becomes a constraint rather than a scalable capability.
Integration helps address these challenges by creating continuity between contracts and the systems used in everyday commercial and operational work. When contract data is structured and connected to adjacent platforms, information can be captured once and reused across functions. This reduces duplication, clarifies ownership, and improves the reliability of reporting and analysis. In Forrester’s CLM landscape research, this type of continuity is described as a prerequisite for organisations that want to scale contract management without increasing risk or administrative overhead.
Integration enables automation and an operating-model view of contracting
From a practical perspective, integration is less about technical architecture and more about how work is actually done. While interfaces and data models matter, the underlying questions are organisational: which systems depend on contract data, when that data needs to be updated, and who is accountable at different stages of the contract lifecycle. Analyst research repeatedly points to this alignment between business, legal, and IT as a decisive factor in whether CLM integrations deliver sustained value.
The relationship between integration and automation reinforces this point. Automation depends on reliable and consistent contract data. Where information is fragmented or manually transferred between systems, automation may increase throughput without improving quality or control. Integrated contract data provides a more stable foundation, allowing automation to be introduced incrementally and governed over time.
Seen in this way, scalable contracting is not primarily about managing documents more efficiently. It is about how contract information functions as part of the organisation’s broader operating model. Control, automation, and integration are closely connected, but integration is what allows contract data to support decision-making beyond isolated use cases.
