FIT GAP PAIN POINS BY TOPIC – ePro, PurchasingOctober 2017
EProcurement /eProcurement Workflow
1)Issue
How will the eProcurement approver tables be maintained? Can these tables be linked to existing tables that are already maintained?
- Can the HRS tables be linked to the ePro Approver table?
- Can the SFS Department Approver table be linked to ePro approver table?
- Approver table maintenance must be automated and/or require minimal upkeep. This is huge and very valid concern, for some of the larger campuses.
Response
Designated workflow administrator at each institution, i.e. BU Administrator,will be responsible for managing this process. Will work with DoIT to create an automatic linkage with established tables in the system, when possible. The required maintenance will depend on the selected workflow from each institution.
2)Issue
With regard to the approval workflow, institutions do not like the “Push Back” feature. They want the option to push back a requisitionto the originator, not just the prior approver.
- Can configuration be done to give approvers this option?
- This is a HUGE paint point for most institutions.
- Need flexible workflow approval
Response
9.2 may provide a solution to this pain point. Will conduct testing on this functionality during the test scenario phase of the project. Institutions interested in eProcurement need to make sure the approval workflow places key individuals at the front of the approval process to minimize the need for “pushbacks.”
3)Issue
Institutions would like requisitions to be electronic and in SFS
Response: eProcurement
4)Issue
Need an option that requires the least amount of work from the requester to get an eProcurement requisition completed.
Response
There are express optionsavailable in 9.2 for infrequent users. An example is the use of the Requisition Tile. The tile is a one-stop shop for requisitions. Configuration would have to be completed to set up the chart field defaults to utilize this option.Training will address this issue.
5)Issue
How will the approval process work for institutions currently on workflow that move to eProcurement?Today 4 institutions are on workflow.
Response
This should not be a concern.If an institution goes on ePro, the electronic workflow will take the place of the current workflow process. The current approvals can be incorporated into the eProcurement requisition approval workflow.
6)Issue
Have to go into 4 screens to expedite a requisition to a purchase order
Response
After a requisition is approved, there is a process that involves a few pages to expedite a requisition to a PO, if the buyer wants to create the purchase order immediately. If this is not required, overnight batch jobscould be set up to budget check and expedite approved requisitions to purchase orders automatically. Will review business process during testing phase. Bottom line, there are several ways to create POs from a requisition that would cut down on the sourcing process. This will be reviewed during the training for those institutions going on ePro at upgrade time.
7)Issue
Is there a crosswalk table to easily match requisitions to Purchase Orders?
Response
9.2 offers several ways to easily match a requisition to a purchase order and vice versa. This will be covered during the training.
8)Issue
Need to be able to easily reference the following fields
- Requisition
- PO
- Reference number
- Bid number
- Waiver number
- State Bulletin
- Purchasing Authority
- PO Type
Response
Upgrade Team will look into this and address during training.
9)Issue
Most campus currently on BP Logics or Image Now and are not interested in teaching/learning a new process.
Response
Moving to eProcurement is not required.
10) Issue
EProcurement Requester Training. How will this be handled? Larger institutions concerned how to train all the people that will create requisitions.
Response
Will be based on current business process at each institution. For example, some campuses are moving towards a Shared Service Center. This may require a train the trainer type of training.
Item Categories
11) Issue
Current item categories are not set up properly. Is any team addressing the item categories in 9.2? Is this a GL issue? Bottom line, how will item categories be handled in 9.2? This affects all Modules to some extent.
Response
Will determine how item categories will be defined moving forward. Today there are over 9000 categories. Are all of these needed?This will be reviewed. Will reach out to campuses to get an understanding of what categories are needed. For example, one campus uses approximately 30 categories and another campuses uses about 25. Bottom line, no need for over 9000 categories.
PO Distribution Line
12) Issue
Pain point- negative amounts on line for discounts.Handling discounts from Vendors, using negative amount.
Response
Business process will have to change. May need to use comments to identify negative amounts. Create test scenario to see if this causes problems. Want to verify will not cause issues at purchase order rollover time.
Copy to PO to Voucher
13)Issue
Missing distribution lines when vouchering against a PO.
Response
When you do a "Copy from PO", only the lines that are still available to use are copied over to the voucher and there is no indication as to what lines they are from the PO. If "Purchase Order Only" (Copy From drop down box) is selected and you use the "Go" hyperlink, then you can get a list of the lines still available on the PO you select. Issue is not SFS issue. Training will correct issue.
PO Dispatch
14)Issue
Today the process to retrieve a vendor copy of a purchase order is very cumbersome. Is there an easy way to pull a copy?
Response
9.2 may offer an easier alternative to obtain a vendor copy of a purchase order. Keep in mind, the vendor copy is a sensitive document, due to the signatures that are displayed on this version of the purchase order. The buyer copy does not have an individual’s signature, thus it is more readily available to retrieve. This may be by design. This can be a discussion point.
Payment Terms
15)Issue
Would like new payment terms, want to pay vendors weekly rather than daily, or pay a few days before the end of the month (2/10 NET EOM) for grants processing.
PO puts NET 30 on voucher when want DUR.
Response
Payment terms can be changed on voucher. Once it is posted, you cannot change the payment terms. Payment terms default from the supplier. This is not an SFS issue.
16)Issue
Credit memos show up on the daily pre-pay edit (nVision) until there is an offset to pay.
Response
Business Process change. Institutions need to see credit memos, to be reminded they are available.
New Year Process
17)Issue
New Year POs entered in before the New Year with the prior year date. Thiscauses encumbrance balance issues when the PO is budget checked.
Response
Entering new POs once the New Year begins, is not an option. Will try to increase training on this, because as of today there is no delivered function in 9.2 that would take care of this issue. Possible solution is to createa template for New Year POs and have DoIt upload it at New Year. Will have to test and discuss with DoIt support. Another option is to see if code can be added to prevent the entry of incorrect dates.
External Linkages
18)Issue
Want to link invoices in Image Now to WISDM
Response
Not an SFS issue. What is the business process that requires this? This can be a roadmap item
P-Cards
19)Issue
Getting people to use Pcards correctly, having NIGP codes used incorrectly (for conferences) etc. Quite a frustrating process. 1500 limit is low. Get 5-10 requests per week to increase. A lot of work to accommodate the smaller non PO items.
Response
Mandatory training. Nothing in 9.2 to address this issue
Other
20)Issue
Campuses would like to receive a listing of the customization that will not be migrated to 9.2
Response
This information, along with other critical upgrade information will be disseminated to the campuses via the assigned institution change advocate.