CLMs Store Contracts, Not Relationships
James McGillicuddy, CEO of BRM, on the problem with “little P” procurement
The key distinction is that most CLMs win by organizing paperwork, not by becoming the operating system for the full vendor relationship. In practice, teams often use Ironclad, Icertis, SpringCM, or Ariba to store executed agreements, route approvals, and pull terms back up later, while the real work of tracking vendor usage, renewal risk, compliance status, and overlapping tools still lives across ERP, email, spend systems, and spreadsheets. That gap is what creates room for a vendor centric layer.
-
Ironclad’s wedge was stronger pre signature workflow control, not just storage. It built approval routing, versioning, Word based editing, e signature, and metadata into one system. But its atomic unit is still the contract, which makes it narrower than a system built around one vendor and every touchpoint tied to that vendor.
-
Icertis pushes further than a basic repository by connecting contracts to ERP, CRM, and procurement systems, surfacing things like payment term mismatches, renewal opportunities, and vendor consolidation ideas. Even so, the center of gravity remains contract intelligence flowing into adjacent workflows, rather than a native vendor record that starts outside the document.
-
This also explains why these tools often coexist. BRM describes customers using Ironclad, Icertis, and DocuSign alongside it, because CLM handles contract process while BRM aims to reconcile one vendor identity across ERP, email, spend management, contracts, and public data, then run renewal, compliance, and buying workflows on top.
The market is moving from document systems toward relationship systems that can act on contract data, spend data, and usage data together. CLMs are already expanding with AI and deeper integrations, but the next layer of value sits in software that knows not just what a contract says, but whether the company should renew, consolidate, replace, or negotiate the vendor behind it.