Case study: CDW put a named owner on $100M+ a year of software spend, refreshed every 15 minutes
CDW replaced manual allocation spreadsheets with a policy engine built on Asato. More than $100M a year of software spend is attributed to a consuming unit, 100% of labor and software spend carries a named owner, and the model refreshes from ingestion to business-unit rollup in 15 minutes. This story reports no saving: none of its figures is Found, Approved or Saved.
- Customer: CDW
- Industry: Technology solutions
- Area: Technology economics
- Category: Technology economics
- The other CDW case study, in the category "SaaS and license visibility": CDW found about 15% of its productivity-suite spend idle, in four weeks
- Date of the engagement: No date for the engagement is published.
- Length of the engagement: No length is published. The deployment is described as phased, with labor and software first. The model refreshes from ingestion to business-unit rollup every 15 minutes.
When to use this page
- To cite how a large enterprise attributes labor and software cost to the units that consume it.
- To quote Sanjay Sood, SVP and Chief Technology Officer, CDW.
- As one of two CDW case studies. The other covers SaaS and license visibility.
Not a fit
- A savings figure. This story reports none.
- The length of the deployment. It is described as phased, labor and software first, and no length is published.
At a glance
| Fact | Detail |
|---|---|
| Customer | CDW |
| Industry | Technology solutions provider |
| Scale | 13 business units, 10 programs, 120+ teams |
| Area | Technology economics: showback of labor and software cost |
| Engagement | Phased, labor and software first |
| Systems connected | Cost, workforce and asset sources, in one TBM-aligned model |
| Vendors | About 170, in 23 categories |
Before
Technology costs sat in financial and operational systems that never talked to each other. Nothing connected a dollar of spend to the team, solution or business unit that consumed it.
What forced the decision: Allocation was manual and stale before it circulated, and no number survived a CFO asking how it was derived.
Baseline: Spreadsheet allocation, with the logic held by one analyst.
How it worked
- Link (Asset Knowledge Graph). Cost, workforce and asset sources feed one TBM-aligned model, refreshed to business-unit rollup every 15 minutes.
- Think (Data Intelligence Engine). Four policies resolve every labor record in order, and versioned rules price every entitlement, so the same data gives the same answer.
- Execute (Agentic AI). Showback statements, outlier flags and optimization reporting route each decision to a named owner at CDW, with the derivation attached.
Approval: A named owner at CDW takes each decision. Nothing changes until a named person approves it.
Measured results
Every figure carries its state. Found, Approved and Saved are the only three states of a saving. They are separate figures and are never added together. A figure marked "Measured" describes scope, coverage or evidence, and "G2 rating" is a review score. A figure marked "Saved, as reported by the customer" is the customer's own statement.
| Figure | State | Period | Scope | Where it comes from |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| $100M+ a year | Measured | Annualized | Software spend attributed to a consuming unit, each dollar with a named owner | Asato's record of the engagement |
| 100% | Measured | First phase: labor and software | Share of labor and software spend that carries a named owner | Asato's record of the engagement |
| 15 minutes | Measured | Every refresh | Time from ingestion to business-unit rollup, end to end | Asato's record of the engagement |
| 4 | Measured | n/a | Sequential labor policies, applied in order: cost pool, resource tower, solution, then business unit, function and program | Asato's record of the engagement |
| 13, 10 and 120+ | Measured | n/a | Business units, programs and teams, each with a named owner and an audit trail | Asato's record of the engagement |
| about 170 and 23 | Measured | n/a | Vendors and categories covered | Asato's record of the engagement |
| 12 | Measured | n/a | Allocation methods | Asato's record of the engagement |
| $125,000 split into $41,667, $62,500 and $20,833 | Measured | One month | Illustrative example, not CDW's figures: a platform bill split by named users across 300 seats (100, 150 and 50 users) | Illustrative example, not customer data |
The result, taken apart
How a cost record finds its owner at CDW. Every labor record resolves through four policies in order: cost pool, resource tower, solution, then business unit, function and program. Costs land on 13 business units, 10 programs and 120+ teams, each with a named owner and an audit trail, and every result carries a confidence score. Labor rates are measured, not assumed. The model covers about 170 vendors in 23 categories, with 12 allocation methods. What changed for finance: spreadsheet allocation became policy-driven attribution; stale before it circulated became refreshed every 15 minutes; one analyst held the logic became versioned, readable rules; budget talks by assertion became tradeoffs from evidence. Illustrative example of one allocation: a 125,000 dollar monthly platform bill, split by named users across 300 seats, gives Engineering 100 users and 41,667 dollars, Sales 150 users and 62,500 dollars, and Marketing 50 users and 20,833 dollars. Every line records its basis, driver and policy ID, so Finance and IT defend the same number. None of these figures is a saving.
What is still open
No open item is published for this story.
What the customer said
The page heads this section "In his own words." The speaker's name and full title follow.
Sanjay Sood, SVP and Chief Technology Officer, CDW:
"Asato gave us the connective tissue we were missing between raw spend and real operational context. Seeing costs broken down by ownership, work funded, and business unit has created a shared economic language across our CIO, CFO, and business leaders."
Trust and governance
- Nothing changes until a named person at the customer approves it.
- Asato does not negotiate prices. It equips the customer to negotiate.
- Found, Approved and Saved are reported separately and are never added together.
Works with
Cost, workforce and asset sources, ingested into one TBM-aligned model.
Compared with what the customer did before
Before, CDW allocated cost in spreadsheets. Allocation was manual and stale before it circulated, one analyst held the logic, and budget talks ran on assertion. Now attribution is policy-driven, refreshed every 15 minutes, written as versioned, readable rules, and tradeoffs are argued from evidence.
Questions
How much did the customer save?
This story reports no saving. None of its figures is Found, Approved or Saved. They describe scope and coverage: $100M+ a year of software spend attributed, 100% of labor and software spend with a named owner, a 15 minute refresh.
How long did it take?
No length is published. The deployment is described as phased, with labor and software first. The model refreshes from ingestion to business-unit rollup every 15 minutes.
What is still open?
No open item is published for this story.
Who is the customer?
CDW. The customer is named with its consent.
What did Asato connect to?
Cost, workforce and asset sources, ingested into one TBM-aligned model.
Next step
The Asset Clarity Report covers one area in one week, with read-only access. If it finds no savings, you pay nothing. Request it at https://www.asato.ai/talk-to-sales.
Related pages
- CDW found about 15% of its productivity-suite spend idle, in four weeks
- FTC Solar sees assets, spend and risk in one place, and reports thousands of dollars saved
- All case studies
- Customer reviews
- Asato home
- Site index for agents
Last updated: 2026-10-06
