When Not to Buy CLM (and What to Do Instead)

TL;DR

Contract lifecycle management software delivers value when prerequisites are in place: stable templates, clear approval paths, clean master data, and a defined integration boundary. Many departments consider CLM before those foundations exist. That sequence invites cost without control. This piece outlines clear signals not to purchase yet and specific actions to take instead. References include guidance from the Association of Corporate Counsel, CLOC, World Commerce & Contracting, and vendor documentation such as Concord’s templates and DocuSign CLM reporting.

Background and context

Benchmarking shows continued workload growth and tight budgets across law departments. ACC’s 2025 benchmarking report summarizes staffing and structure across hundreds of organizations, while CLOC’s State of the Industry highlights persistent pressure to do more with flat headcount. The Thomson Reuters Institute’s latest Legal Department Operations Index reports rising matter volume and demand for measurable outcomes. CLM is often positioned as a cure-all. In practice, it magnifies the current operating model. When inputs are inconsistent, a CLM purchase can lock variance into a workflow layer and slow adoption. WorldCC’s analysis on value erosion reinforces the need to pair technology with standardization and obligation tracking.

Clear signals not to purchase yet

Templates are inconsistent or missing. If standard forms vary by author, region, or business unit without governance, a CLM will only route inconsistent content faster. A minimum set of master templates and playbooks should exist first. Concord’s documentation on templates is a useful reference for defining ownership, variables, and update cadence.
Approval rules are unclear or frequently bypassed. When approver identity or thresholds change case by case, configuration becomes a policy debate rather than an implementation step. ACC’s benchmarking work emphasizes policy clarity as a prerequisite for scale; CLOC’s survey links maturity to standardized approvals.
Master data is unreliable. Contract metadata often relies on upstream customer, supplier, and product records. If CRM accounts, items, or legal entities are duplicated or out of date, CLM fields will reflect that noise. The UK government’s Technology Code of Practice is a neutral resource on data quality and service ownership before tooling decisions.
Integration boundaries are undefined. Without a decision on what remains authoritative in CRM or ERP, a CLM purchase can create two competing records of truth. Deloitte’s note on the ROI of contract excellence frames integration choices as drivers of value, not afterthoughts.
Negotiation happens primarily in email and local files. If redlines are scattered across email threads and personal drives, adoption will stall. A lightweight centralization step is needed first, even if it uses shared workspaces rather than a full CLM.
Cycle time problems are policy-driven. Delays caused by pricing exceptions, manual finance reviews, or security questionnaires will persist regardless of CLM. Technology will not fix upstream exception policies.
Change management capacity is limited. CLM introduces new roles, permissions, and data entry expectations for non-legal users. ILTA’s technology survey overview consistently links adoption to training and admin capacity. If that capacity is not available, purchase timing should shift.

What to do instead

Stabilize a core template set and clause library. Start with the top three revenue-bearing agreements and the most common vendor form. Publish ownership, versioning, and a simple intake for change requests. Even simple systems benefit from documented templates; see how Concord structures template creation and variables.
Publish a one-page approval map. List thresholds, approver roles, and escalation rules for standard agreements and exceptions. Treat the map as the reference design for any future CLM workflow.
Centralize negotiation artifacts. Move track-changes documents and email attachments into a shared repository with naming conventions and access controls. This reduces loss of context and eases later migration.
Instrument cycle time and exceptions. Use current tools to measure draft-to-signature time and the count of escalations. DocuSign CLM’s report management and Ironclad’s Insights are examples of native reporting teams can emulate in spreadsheets if no CLM is present. Concord provides practical options for exporting data to CSV for analysis.
Agree on the system of record. Decide which fields are authoritative in CRM, ERP, and any future CLM. Salesforce’s contract object model is a reference point for what tends to live in upstream systems; see the Contract object reference.
Pilot self-service without new software. Many departments can enable standard NDA or low-risk order form generation from existing tools using mail merge or document automation. Results inform later CLM configuration and business case.
Build a lean business case tied to throughput and risk. Link expected improvements to a measurable baseline. WorldCC’s value erosion analysis supports focusing on cycle time, obligation capture, and post-signature visibility rather than a general promise of digitization.

When a purchase does make sense

Evidence for readiness usually looks like this:

A stable set of master templates with named owners and an update cadence.
A published approval map with thresholds, roles, and escalation.
Defined integration boundaries and field ownership across systems.
Clean upstream data for accounts, products, and entities.
A measurable baseline for cycle time, exceptions, and throughput.
Capacity for administration and training during the first two quarters post go-live.

At that point, a CLM can formalize intake, auto-generate first drafts, route approvals, and capture structured data for obligations and renewals. Vendor selection should prioritize clarity of APIs, reporting, and security posture over demo breadth. Teams with a preference for Salesforce-centric work may look for managed packages and documented object models. Teams that value collaboration and document-centric negotiation may emphasize clause governance and audit trails. Concord’s emphasis on simplicity and reporting is attractive in lean environments, while other platforms may suit teams that need deep workflow orchestration. The key is fit to operating model, not feature count.

Implementation playbook for the “not yet” phase

Month 1: control the inputs. Finalize master templates and clause ownership. Publish the approval map.
Month 2: measure and centralize. Start cycle-time tracking from draft to signature, including exception counts. Centralize negotiation documents in a shared location with standardized names.
Month 3: segment and test. Identify high-volume, low-variability agreements suitable for self-service. Run a no-software pilot using mail merge or existing document tools and measure impact.
Month 4: integration blueprint. Document systems of record and data flows. Define how contract metadata will sync with CRM and ERP.
Month 5: investment review. Recalculate benefits using measured improvements and gaps. If a purchase is justified, requirements will be grounded in real volumes, exception patterns, and integration detail.

Methods and limitations

This guidance synthesizes professional-body research, analyst commentary, and vendor documentation. ACC and CLOC describe operating constraints and maturity patterns. The Thomson Reuters Institute provides workload context. WorldCC quantifies value erosion from contracting weaknesses. Vendor documentation is cited as exemplars for templates, reporting, and data export, not endorsements of a specific feature set. Some analyst and survey materials require membership or purchase; those are noted as such on the linked landing pages.