James Cook University Procurement Process … of, and discussions with management. ... Founded in...

James Cook University Procurement Process Improvement Report 17 December 2013

Private and confidential

Ms. Tricia Brand Executive Director Division of Finance and Resource Planning James Cook University Angus Smith Drive Douglas, QLD 4811 Dear Tricia We have completed our work to assess and develop a ‘to be’ state and supporting roadmap and implementation plans to improve the University's Procure to Pay process during the period 11 November to 13 December 2013. We conducted our work in accordance with our engagement agreement dated 31 October 2013, and our procedures were limited to those described in that letter. The detailed scope and approach of our work and the findings and recommendations are described in this report. As outlined in our engagement agreement, our report including findings, recommendations and implementation plans delivered to you are based on inquiries of, and discussions with management. We have not sought to verify the accuracy of the data or the information and explanations provided by management.

17 December 2013

Ernst & Young

111 Eagle Street

Brisbane

QLD 4000

Tel: +61 7 3011 3333

Fax: +61 7 3011 3100

ey.com/au

We appreciate the cooperation and assistance provided to us during the course of our work. If you have any questions regarding the content of this report, please contact Peter Rohan on phone: (03) 9655 2668 or via email: [email protected] Yours Sincerely Ernst & Young Date: 17 December 2013

James Cook University P2P

mailto:[email protected]

Disclaimer

►Our work has been limited in scope and time and we stress that more detailed procedures may reveal issues that this engagement has not. Our report does not constitute an audit or review in accordance with any generally accepted auditing or review standards.

►Our report is intended solely for the information and use of the management of James Cook University and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties. Ernst & Young therefore assumes no responsibility to any user of the report other than JCU. Any other persons who choose to rely on our report do so entirely at their own risk.

Presentation title

Contents

Executive Summary 5

Introduction 8

Findings & Opportunities 15

Strategy & Governance 16

Policy & Process 20

People & Organisation 25

Risks & Controls 35

Data & Technology 42

Performance Management 49

Sign-off 56

Appendices

Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement 58

Appendix B: Opportunity Maps 64

Appendix C: ‘To Be’ Process Illustrative Examples 72

Appendix D: Singapore Procurement Processes 81

Appendix E: Implementation Plans 83

Appendix F: Interview Quotes 84

Appendix G: Change Management & Culture 89


Executive Summary


Executive Summary

Context and Review Objectives:

► Ernst & Young (EY) was appointed by James Cook University (JCU) to assess and improve their Procure to Pay (P2P) process to enable: ► Consistency across the University

► Increased effectiveness and efficiency of the end-to-end process

► Incorporation of adequate controls to prevent risk.

► This work was conducted as part of a broader program of improvement currently being implemented across JCU.

► The focus of our work has been to identify practical steps to improve the P2P process in a manner consistent with better practice, but equally seeking immediate short-term improvements where feasible.

Findings:

Our overall recommendations set out in this report provide details regarding proposed changes to: Strategy & Governance, Policy & Processes, People & Organisation, Risks & Controls, Data & Technology, and Performance Measurement. A summary is provided on the following page. These recommendations address what EY consider to be quite significant scope to improve the current processes that are characterised as too manual, with unclear accountabilities, excessive checking, and without any overarching procurement strategy.

Our recommendations include a number of initiatives that can be implemented progressively, some starting immediately. However, to limit change fatigue, the implementation plan transitions directly towards a best of breed P2P function, rather than an interim transition stage first.

Our work also highlighted the dependency of many major potential improvements on full use of the functionality of existing systems, notably FinanceOne. Our talks with the vendor, as well as other users of FinanceOne, were most helpful in shaping our final recommendations and equally provide an ongoing forum for JCU to engage with other universities confronting similar problems in a similar systems environment.


Executive Summary (Cont.)

Area of

Improvement

Recommendations

Strategy & Governance ► Articulate and align the JCU procurement plan with JCU strategic and business objectives and State

Purchasing Policy (SPP)

► Implement formal category management, strategic sourcing and supplier collaboration in selected areas to

extract better value from total spend and reduce suppliers and transactions per supplier

► Establish clear governance for procurement

Policy & Process ► Move to a single requisition method, in addition to use of credit cards

► Eliminate selected non-value add process points (these are identified in the body of the report)

► Assess potential to move to an integrated system and remove manual processes

► Establish end-to-end University processes with identified process owners

People & Organisation ► Clarify roles and responsibilities across the P2P process (the report provides a starting point)

► Appoint a Chief Procurement Officer, (or equivalent) with the capability and authority to drive the benefits

from improved procurement practices

► Assess and build capability of the procurement function

Risks & Controls ► Simplify and increase the transparency of delegations

► Align risks and controls adopting a more risk-based approach (e.g. not funds checking every transaction and

performing additional checks)

► Automate controls where possible

Data & Technology ► Review FinanceOne and Spendvision functionality with vendors

►Better leverage the existing functionality of FinanceOne

► Improve data capture and interfaces to support reporting, analysis and performance management

Performance

Measurement

► Aligned to the procurement plan, introduce a balanced scorecard approach, to measure performance for both

the procurement function and individuals

► Introduce supplier performance and contract monitoring for key suppliers and contracts


Introduction


Introduction

Seeking to improve efficiency and effectiveness of University wide services and operations, JCU collaborated with EY to identify improvement opportunities across a number of services.

Following on from these findings, EY was engaged to assist in reengineering JCU’s P2P process.

The focus was to rapidly design a better practice model for the P2P process, and collaborate with the JCU project team to develop transition and implementation plans to enable:

► Consistency across the University

► Increased effectiveness and efficiency of the end-to-end process

► Incorporation of adequate controls to prevent risk

The project was delivered using a phased approach illustrated below:


Approach & Scope

Approach:

A collaborative workshop based approach was used to leverage EYs experience, and existing JCU documentation and knowledge to:

► Understand the current state of P2P at JCU

► Develop a ‘to be’ design leveraging better practice

► Develop a transition and implementation plan for the ‘to be’ state

Details of Stakeholder engagement are contained in Appendix A.

High level benchmarking was conducted to compare JCU’s P2P efficiency against available data (APQC1 benchmark data sets and other data available to EY) to confirm potential improvement opportunities. The focus of this benchmarking was on FTE effort in undertaking key procurement processes.

Scope:

JCU Singapore was considered only in the context of assessing its potential as a location for all P2P processes across JCU. It has not been included in the formal implementation plan, except with respect to recommendations regarding longer- term shared service processing recommendations.

A key assumption of the ‘to be’ design is FinanceOne (JCU’s current Finance system) will not be replaced in the foreseeable future. Therefore, consistent with the JCU’s IT strategy, investigation was undertaken of additional end-to-end procurement functionality of Finance0ne to support JCU’s P2P process. While there are potential other procurement solutions that could integrate with FinanceOne, a market scan of such technology was out of scope for this project.

Noting this project is part of a broader JCU program of work, it was agreed (notwithstanding a separate review JCU’s delegation framework) to the extent improvements to delegations were identified as part of the P2P project they would be included in scope. While there are also touch points between P2P and a project to improve JCU’s travel process, travel processes were out of scope.

1. Founded in 1977, APQC is a member-based non-profit serving 500 organisations worldwide in all industry sectors. APQC spearheaded the Open Standards Benchmarking Collaborative (OSBC) research to develop commonly used processes, measures and benchmarks that are available to organisations worldwide to improve performance. (www.apqc.org).


http://www.apqc.org/

Current & ‘To Be’ State

Current & ‘to be’ State:

In assessing the current state, it was identified the following leading practices were already in place within the P2P process of JCU, and would be retained in the ‘to be’ design:

► Low value purchases <$5 thousand are made via purchase card

► All accounts payable settlements are made via Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT), with no payments made via cheque

► There are some automated controls and workflow systems in use within FinanceOne

► The University has in place standard payment terms

► The University has made some progress to obtaining synergies with the transition towards a shared services model.

Notwithstanding these practices, a number of pain points and opportunities to improve the efficiency and the effectiveness of JCU’s P2P process were identified.

The table on the following page provides an overview of the current and ‘to be’ state of P2P at JCU.


Current & ‘To Be’ State (Cont.)

Element To be State Current State

Strategy &

Governance

A clear procurement vision and plan supported by documented strategies communicated across the University with robust risk management plans and a clear governance model across all faculties and divisions

Procurement strategy is out of date, lacks clarity and is poorly communicated. The function is not supported by a structured governance model and is broadly disconnected from its customers (JCU faculties and divisions)

Policy & Process Policies and processes are clear, documented and easily accessible. Processes will be value adding and automated, leveraging technology (where cost effective). Existing good practices will be retained

Policies and processes exist, however, there is not a clear University-wide view of the end-to-end processes. There are also a number of manual and non-value adding processes

People &

Organisation

The procurement organisation plays a strategic role, enabled by an optimised model with clear roles, responsibilities, accountabilities and integrated competencies

The procurement role is operational, with a lack of clarity regarding roles, responsibilities and accountabilities, and may not be leveraging the full benefits from shared services opportunities

Risks & Controls Controls and delegations reflect value, risk and capability, and are automated and preventative where possible

A perception that the procurement process is over-controlled, with no clear link between risk tolerance and control design and a heavy reliance on manual controls

Data &

Technology

A University-wide end-to-end integrated system solution, which reduces manual processes and risks, and captures data to support decision making and performance management

A number of manual processes (including paper based forms), a lack of integrated systems, and limited quality data to support analysis and performance measurement

Performance

Measurement

Monitor the service and value added by the procurement function through clear and integrated internal performance metrics linked to strategy and translated to function and employee level, as well as monitoring supplier performance

No official performance management framework exists for the procurement function. KPIs for both the procurement function and individuals are not aligned to a procurement plan and translated into actions at the employee level. Supplier performance and contract compliance is not officially managed and procurement benefits realisation is not tracked


High

0 - 6 months

Low

Medium

Eff

ort

Timeframe

6 - 12 months 12 months +

SG1

Prioritised Opportunities

Opportunities

SG1 Document procurement plan and consistent polices RC4 System based approvals

SG2 Develop procurement risk register RC5 Remove additional funds check

SG3 Implement strategic sourcing and category management RC6 PCI compliance as part of vendor selection

SG4 Rationalise Product Range RC7 Eliminate additional approval requisition & order

SG5 Consolidate and maintain accessible preferred suppliers list RC8 Remove additional supplier data check on set up

SG6 Develop Performance Framework RC9 Centralise receipting and invoice processing

SG7 Integrate ethics and sustainability into strategy RC10 Remove additional invoice processing check

SG8 Restructure procurement governance RC11 Perform a 3 way match

PP1 Simple policy decision tree RC12 Remove additional review of Western Union File

PP2 JCU wide process RC13 Enforce credit card acquittal timelines

PP3 Single requisition method RC14 Eliminate retrospective purchase orders

PP4 System generated Purchase Order RC15 Map risks and controls

PP5 Service levels and ability to monitor workflow DT1 Requisition access to relevant parties

PP6 Remove unnecessary process flows DT2 Solution to monitor credit card purchases

PP7 Use of sundry creditors DT3 Integrated end-to-end solution

PP8 Efficiencies through centralisation DT4 Leverage existing technology functionality

PP9 Remove duplicate data entry DT5 Resolve partial receipts “Carry ons”

PP10 Remove manual process DT6 Data capture to support analysis

PO1 Define roles, responsibilities and accountabilities DT7 Capture un acquitted card commitments

P02 Redefine organisational structure DT8 Single supplier file

PO3 Establish CPO role DT9 Review system functionality and market scan

PO4 Incorporate training and accreditation PM1 Develop procurement function KPIs

PO5 Perform competency assessments PM2 Introduce performance management

P06 Develop performance metrics to incentivise compliance PM3 Develop procurement scorecard

PO7 Engage staff and build careers PM4 Develop employee KPIs

PO8 Re-scope of shared services PM5 Develop supplier performance framework

PO9 Consider leveraging global work force PM6 Implement external benchmarking

RC1 Simplify and increase transparency of delegations PM7 Improve data quality

RC2 System requisition with application controls PM8 Incorporate benefits management

RC3 Materiality threshold for funds check PM9 Enforce consequences for non acquittal of cards

To develop the implementation plan to support JCU in achieving its ‘to be’ state, the expected time and effort across each improvement opportunity was assessed. Initiatives were classified according to the following delivery time horizons:

► Short-term: 0-6 months (including ‘Quick Wins’ in green)

► Medium Term: 6-12 months

► Long Term: 12+ months

The outcomes of this prioritisation process are shown below.

Each of these opportunities is discussed in the body of the report and cross referenced to the implementation plans in Appendix E.


SG2

SG3

SG4 SG5

SG6 SG7 SG8

PP1 PP2

PP3 PP4 PP5 PP6

PP7

PP8

PP9 PP10

PO1 PO2 PO3

PO4 PO5

PO6

PO7 PO8

PO9

RC1

RC2

RC3

RC4

RC5

RC6

RC7 RC8

RC9

RC10

RC11

RC12

RC13

RC14

RC15 DT1 DT2

DT3

DT4

DT5

DT6

DT7

DT8 DT9 PM1

PM2 PM3 PM4 PM5 PM6 PM7 PM8 PM9

Next Steps

The following next steps are recommended:

► While prioritisation and timeframes of opportunities were discussed at the ‘to be’ validation workshop with stakeholders, prioritisation must be reviewed in the context of:

► Resource availability, capability and internal priorities (e.g. prioritise ‘quick win’ initiatives in the context of BAU activities and JCU broader program initiatives)

► Interdependent initiatives within this project and the broader program will impact overall success. We have worked with stakeholders to understand these dependencies in the definition of the roadmap. Key dependencies are listed in the opportunities tables on the subsequent pages

► Partnering with IT to validate and align system associated initiatives with the overall IT strategy and roadmap. We have held preliminary discussions with IT to understand the current landscape and future direction to inform development of the roadmap.

► Complete a case for change including the quantification of the impact of the opportunities, noting key inputs requiring further analysis including:

► Assessment of University-wide benefits

► The cost of technology investment

► Human resource investment required.

► JCU Governance to review and endorse the recommended prioritised initiatives and confirm BAU resource level impacts.

► Recognising the significant cultural shift will be key to the successful transition of P2P at JCU, we have included change and culture information in Appendix G.


Findings & Opportunities


Strategy & Governance


Strategy & Governance Findings

► Corporate Procurement Plan aligning to the SPP and JCU‘s business strategy documented annually

► Efficient, integrated and well documented procure to pay process available to all users

► Key categories sourced and managed centrally:

► Strategic sourcing and category management function

► Fixed price contracts, standing offers and blanket orders

► Specification and product rationalisation

► Leverage Whole-of-Government contracts and standing offers

► Procurement risks are managed, prioritised and mitigated through collaboration with suppliers

► Supplier consolidation and preferred supplier lists are maintained on a regular basis

► Effective supplier collaboration (forward buy plans) and supplier performance management

► A clear governance model across all faculties and divisions, led by a CPO (or equivalent) reporting directly to the Executive Director Finance and Resource Planning (EDFRP)

► JCU procurement plan is not current and lacks clear strategy

► The last Corporate Procurement Plan is dated 2010

► Per SPP the plan should be developed annually

► A procurement risk register and mitigation plan does not exist

► Procurement strategy enablers are not used to full effect:

► Strategic sourcing and category managment is almost non-existent

► Fixed price contracts and standing offers are used but not to great effect

► Supplier consolidation is non-existent

► Preferred supplier lists exist but are not widely communicated or enforced

► Product and/or specification rationalisation is not being used to reduce procurement complexity

► JCU‘s procurement function currently lacks strategic direction, structure and leadership

To Be State Current State

JCUs current procurement strategy is out of date, lacks clarity and is poorly communicated. It does not align to State Purchasing Policy (SPP) requirements and is not driven by clear policies and procedures. The centralised procurement function is not supported by a structured governance model and while there are some strong relationships, it is broadly disconnected with its customers (JCU faculties and divisions).


Corporate Procurement Plan and SPP

► The SPP requires JCU to develop an annual Corporate Procurement Plan based on a thorough understanding of the University’s purchasing expenditure, supply markets and demand attributes. It should define: ► The objectives to be achieved through the department’s/agency’s purchasing activities consistent with the objectives of the

State Purchasing Policy

► How the department/agency will meet its specified objectives

► Mechanisms through which the achievement of the department’s/agency’s procurement objectives will be measured SOURCE: Queensland Purchasing – Corporate Procurement Planning – Better Purchasing Guide February 2001

► The SPP states JCU should be driving towards a procurement function that aligns with the following six principles: 1. Principle 1: We drive value for money in our procurement

2. Principle 2: We act as ‘one government’, working together across agency boundaries to achieve savings and benefits

3. Principle 3: We are leaders in procurement practice – we understand our needs, the market, our suppliers and have the capability to deliver better outcomes

4. Principle 4: We use our procurement to advance the government’s economic, environmental and social objectives and support the long-term wellbeing of our community

5. Principle 5: We have the confidence of stakeholders and the community in the government’s management of procurement

6. Principle 6: We undertake our procurement with integrity, ensuring accountability for outcomes ► SOURCE: Queensland Procurement Policy June 2013

“The corporate procurement plan should set out the strategies for improving management of the

University's procurement function and related expenditure, providing a whole-of-university view of

procurement”


Strategy & Governance Opportunities

Ref Opportunity Issue Impact Effort Time Frame

Dependencies

SG1 ► Document the corporate procurement plan

aligning to business strategy and SPP

► Clearly document consistent policies for

procurement processes (See also PP2)

► The corporate procurement plan has not been

updated since 2010

► JCU purchasing objectives and strategy are

unclear

M M

0-6 Capability

SG2 ► Develop a procurement risk register and

mitigation strategies, collaborating with key

suppliers

► Mitigation of issues arising from risks is

reactive rather than proactively managed

M

M

0-6 Capability

SG3 ► Implement strategic sourcing and category

management

• Prioritising based on total spend,

operational importance, supply chain risk

and savings opportunities

► There is a further opportunity to leverage

whole-of-Government supply arrangements

► Faculties manage simple procurement

independently

► Cost and time savings through aggregated

volume and contract based procurement are

not leveraged

H H 6-12

Capability Data quality Subject to capacity could be done in conjunction with SG4 & SG5

SG4 ► Rationalise product range and consistency of

specifications to remove procurement

complexity

► A potential large range of similar products

means more complexity for the supplier and

less opportunity for procurement savings

H L/M 0-6 Data quality

SG5 ► Consolidate range of suppliers and develop

and maintain a preferred supplier list that is

easily accessible to users

• Longer-term suppliers are embedded in

system application controls such as

catalogues

► Procurement of the same items from multiple

suppliers is likely resulting in lower savings

from volume aggregation and increased

supplier appraisal complexity

H L/M 0-6 Data quality

SG6 ► Develop a performance framework and metrics

for key contracts and suppliers

• Incorporate these in new contract

arrangements (including supplier reporting)

(See also PM5)

► Supplier adherence to contract and service

level agreements is not formally monitored or

enforced

• Potentially results in poor service

M

M

6-12 Capability Data quality

SG7 ► Integrate university ethics and sustainability

aspects into procurement strategy

► Level of requirement for procuring

goods/services locally and sustainably is

unclear

L M

0-6 Capability

SG8 ► Restructure procurement governance and

recruit a CPO (or equivalent) that reports

directly to the EDFRP

► Procurement function lacks leadership,

strucuture, direction and accountability

H M

0-6


Policy & Process


Policy & Process Findings

► A user friendly single point of entry:

► Policy and process in the form of a decision tree with links to relevant details

► Clear and documented end-to-end processes and work instructions centrally developed, communicated and easy to locate and access

► Processes are University-wide and end-to-end with a clear process owner

► Processes are automated and leverage system functionality to reduce manual rekeying, review and intervention (subject to cost/ benefit considerations)

► Non-value adding or inefficient processes are removed

► Consider implementing a goods receipting process to support centralised processing of invoices and gain efficiencies

► Purchasing low value goods and services of less than $5,000 via purchase cards and negotiating standard payment terms with suppliers will continue

► Appropriare card purchase controls are to be enforced

Illustrative ‘to be’ processes (subject to system functionality) are included Appendix C.

► Users are challenged by the format and volume of content in FMPM 711

► No clear documented Univeristy-wide end-to-end process:

► Key process documentation is fragmented with organisational units developing their own guidance and work instructions

► A reliance on manual processes:

► Paper based forms, manual entry, approvals, and emails to manage workflow and review

► Varied and non-value adding processes:

► Multiple requisition formats

► Reformatting of Purchase Orders and the generation of Purchase Orders not sent to suppliers

► Duplicated checks

► No formal goods receipting process:

► Receipting is performed via a signature on an invoice which is then sent to accounts payable for processing

Further details regarding the manual and non-value adding processes are identified in the Opportunity Maps in Appendix B and cross referenced with the opportunities below.


There is an opportunity to simplify the structure of JCUs procurement policy and develop consistent process documentation to aid user understanding. There are also various process inefficiencies. While some of these are driven by workflow, rework and controls, the most significant opportunities relate to process automation. As such, many of the recommended process improvements are dependant on investment to improve systems functionality.

Note: While there are potential further opportunities that could be obtained from warehousing

and inventory management. Given the current maturity and preferences of the University these

opportunities have not been included in the recommendations and implementation plan for the

‘to be’ state.


Policy & Process Opportunities

Ref Opportunity Issue Impact Effort Time

Frame Dependencies

PP1 ► Develop a simplified decision tree with

hyperlinks and communicate to staff. An

example is included in Appendix C Training of

staff should also address this issue. (See also

PO4)

► Procurement policy is documented, however

anecdotally users are unaware of or unclear on

its end-to end application, including exception

handling

M L 0-6 Develop based on as-is process

and refine as processes are

redesigned in conjunction with

system capability

PP2 ► Develop JCU wide processes

• Each process has a process owner (See

PO1) and clear support contacts

Note: It is recognised in some instances there may

be a requirement for varied process. This is to be

approved by the process owner and included into

centrally documented processes.

► Key processes are documented, however

these have been developed in a fragmented

approach by various divisions and faculties

M L 0-6 Technology: Processes will need to

be amended to reflect changes

made as part of changes to the

system landscape

As processes are redesigned,

document the end-to-end chain

commencing with sourcing and

catalogue creation through to

payment

PP3 ► A single requisition method to promote

consistency and clarity of process (See also

PP4)

• Requisitions should be entered into an

integrated system environment

► There are three methods of raising a

requisition, which is inefficient and confusing

for users (See also DT1)

► Requisition information is manually keyed by

Purchasing Officers from paper based

requisitions. Where email or Webreq is used

copy and paste functionality reduces the effort

and some risk of data entry error

H

M 6-12 Technology: Subject to JCU

Governance decision regarding

system landscape

PP4 ► A system generated Purchase Order that

meets JCU requirements and is provided to the

supplier directly (See also DT9)

► The Spendvision Purchase Order requires

amendment before being emailed by the

Purchasing Officer to the supplier, including:

• PO number to match the Webreq number

• Delivery address details

• Reformatting due to legibility

► Staff not using Spendvision prepare manual

Purchase Orders based on a template

Note: in some instances the order is placed over

the internet and no Purchase Order is required.

M M 6-12 Technology: Subject to JCU


system landscape and the future of

Spendvision

PP5 ► Service levels and performance build trust with

customers incentivised by performance

metrics (See also PM4)

► Longer-term staff have access to systems to

monitor the status of their order (See also DT9)

► The Purchasing Officer sends an email to the

requestor notifying them the order has been

placed with the supplier



system landscape


Policy & Process Opportunities (Cont.)


Frame Dependencies

PP6 ► Remove unnecessary process flows

► Maximise efficiency through implementation of

online requisitions with automated workflows

► Manual processes result in unnecessary flows

of documents



system landscape

PP7 ► Use of sundry creditors in FinanceOne, subject

to:

• Data capture to support analysis and

monitoring of spend by supplier

• Preferred supplier controls to limit use (via

category management and strategic

sourcing)

► Communicate clear service expectations

regarding creditor set up timelines -

consideration given to broadcast emails of

chart changes

► Creditors are established in FinanceOne for

every supplier, student and staff member

where payments are made via Accounts

Payable. This can be up to 30 per day.

► Staff have indicated delays in waiting for

supplier set up. As there is no notification

Purchasing Officers check daily to see if the

creditor has been established

► Restricted access to creditor set up in

FinanceOne was raised as a pain point, this

restriction is a key control and should be

retained

M L 0-6 Data quality: Capturing creditor

details to support analysis

PP8 ► Efficiencies gained through centralising

• Invoice receipt

• AP processing

• Receiving and inventory management by

division, faculty or school (See also RC9)

► Technology to scan all invoices via the mail

room directly to AP

► Inefficient document flows

• Invoices sent to Purchasing Officers in

divisions and faculties, scanned and

emailed to end users, signed manually as

“ok to pay” or a return email, before

sending back to the Purchasing Officer

who emails Accounts Payable

► Risk of double payment as credit card

transactions not recorded in a system until

acquitted. Once acquitted, invoice numbers

and vendors can not be easily identified (See

also DT2 and DT6) . Although thought to be

rare, anecdotally in the past some invoices

have been double or triple paid.

M M 6-12 Data quality: Effectively capturing

all transactions currently not in

FinanceOne

Technology: Supporting the

receipting process FinanceOne.


Policy & Process Opportunities(Cont.)


Frame Dependencies

PP9 ► Remove duplicate entry of data already

captured

► There is manual entry of fields that are already

recorded in the system (e.g. Purchase Order

Number and Creditor Code in Narrative Fields)

L L 0-6 Data quality: Subject to use of

fields in other systems (e.g.

FinWeb) and reports

PP10 ► Remove filing processes where documentation

is stored and authorisation is recorded in the

system audit trail

► There are a number of filing conventions that

should be considered for removal:

• Naming convention on supporting

documents

• Manual batch numbering and document

checking report , signing and filing

L L 0-6


People & Organisation


People & Organisation Findings

► Procurement is viewed as a strategic function, plays a key role in developing and implementing business strategy and has buy-in from functional stakeholders

► Roles and responsibilities are clearly defined with integrated competency models reflected in position descriptions

► There are clear process owners

► Recruiting, staffing and training plans integrate the competencies needed to enable the overall procurement strategy

► Procurement attracts and retains talent, with a clear career path for procurement staff

► The organisational model is:

► Fit for purpose

► Supports strategy delivery

► Leverages fully the shared services model and the potential for commodity processing at the Singapore campus

► Agreed function and individual scorecard performance management processes

Note: At the time of drafting this report, JCU was in the process of releasing a proposal

suggesting a headline restructure of the University. The outcomes and impacts of this

restructure were not fully known, and as such have not been considered in the context of

the findings regarding optimisation of the procurement operating model in this report.

► Operational, process based and reactive rather than a strategic function. Relationships with functional stakeholders vary, but are recognised as important

► A lack of clarity regarding roles, responsibilities and accountabilities both within finance and the broader University engaged in procurement

► A perceived competency gap with stakeholders identifying a lack of onboarding, ongiong training and communications as contributing to inefficiencies

► The organisational model is moving towards a shared services model, but can be further optimised to be a higher value strategic function:

► Further, it was identified that in the current decentralised model, Finance and Business Services (FaBs) staff located within faculties may be driven or pressured by their allegience to the faculty as opposed to the finance function, procurement requirements and better practice procurement

► A limited focus on performance management of the procurement function and individuals

To Be state Current State

While JCU has obtained synergies from transitioning to a shared services model, the P2P function remains fragmented, with a lack of clarity regarding end-to-end roles and responsibilities. Cross industry benchmarking identified that the FTE effort devoted to the overall P2P function at JCU indicates significant opportunities for efficiency improvements. There are further opportunities to optimise the procurement organisation to drive performance and savings.


To provide additional insight into opportunities to optimise the organisational model P2P at JCU, benchmark analysis of FTE effort across the various P2P activities was undertaken. This exercise leveraged the JCU data from effort analysis previously performed by JCU, comparable APQC benchmarks and University data in EYs benchmarking repository.

NOTE: Benchmarks from APQC expressed as a function of spend/revenue and comparable university benchmarks have been converted to metrics that are directly comparable to JCUs FTE count based on the following assumptions:

Optimising the Organisational Structure of JCU P2P

Ben

ch

mark

Perf

orm

an

ce

Pro

cess

Evalu

ati

on

JC

U

Cross Industry Cross Industry less than

$1bn Revenue

Government & Public

Sector

Comparable

Australian

University 1

Comparable

Australian

University 2

Comparable

Australian

University 3 Benchmark

Sam

ple

Siz

e

To

p

Med

ian

Sam

ple

Siz

e

To

p

Med

ian

Sam

ple

Siz

e

To

p

Med

ian

FTEs in the procurement process

group 60.6 682 7.9 32.1 336 13.0 24.6 164 16.3 26.5 23.8 25.7 22.2

FTEs that develop sourcing

strategies 1 492 0.3 2.3 186 0.6 1.5 Insufficient Sample Size 1.8 0.8 0.5

FTEs that appraise and develop

suppliers 1.1 482 0.7 3.2 183 1.3 2.5 Insufficient Sample Size 4.3 1.5 4.4

FTEs that select suppliers and

develop/maintain contracts 3.4 496 0.9 5.1 190 1.5 3.2 Insufficient Sample Size 4.2 3.7 2.4

FTEs that order materials and

services 30.3 487 3.2 15.0 188 5.1 11.4 Insufficient Sample Size 8.6 13.6 8.1

FTEs that process accounts

payable 3* 50 2.1 8.3 94 3.7 6.2 7 2.7 3.6 N/A N/A N/A

Number of FTEs that process

accounts payable and T&E expense

reimbursements 9.3 50 4.6 32.8 11 11.0 20.7 Insufficient Sample Size 12.05 8.0 27.0

Underperforming against peer group benchmarks

Comparable against peer group benchmarks

Outperforming against peer group benchmarks

Benchmarking identified that the FTE effort devoted to the overall P2P function at JCU appeared high compared median performers. Further, the scope of procurement work currently being performed by the JCU procurement function is also, based on our experience, less than what would be expected in those organisations in the benchmarking study. Therefore, there remains significant opportunity to increase scope and move to a better practice strategic procurement organisation driving performance and savings.

• JCU Annual Revenue ~ $500M

• JCU Annual Spend ~ $180M

• JCU T&E Expenses ~ $14.5M

• FX rate = 1AUD/USD


* This FTE count is based on staffing levels sighted during on-site work

Leveraging the Value of Shared Services

► The benefits of shared services are traditionally obtained through the following four levers:

► Labour economies – lower cost to perform the same activities

► Process simplification – standardising and simplifying processes to enhance efficiency and effectiveness

► Organisational consolidation – consolidating activities in fewer locations to drive management and other scale economies

► Systems consolidation – Rationalising systems onto one platform to drive process efficiency through standardisation and automation, which can deliver cost reduction

► To move towards obtaining maximum benefits from its shared services JCU should:

► Consider leveraging the labour economies of its JCU Singapore campus

► Simplify and automate processes

► Defragment procurement processing

► Integrate systems

► As shown in the table below, finance processes that are candidates for shared services are often routine, non-complex and IT intensive:

Mostly Shared Often Shared Emerging Shared Rarely Shared

► Accounts Payable

► Accounts Receivable

► Travel and expenses

► PO invoice matching

► Supplier contract compliance

► Accounting and close

► Fixed assets

► Cash management

► Project Accounting

► Billing

► Procurement card administration

► Create and manage supplier

contracts

► Management reporting

► Process improvement

► Financial analytics

► Supply chain operations

► Supply / demand planning

► Strategic sourcing

► Control and risk management

► Core treasury

► Decision making authorities

► Appraise supplier performance

While JCU is transitioning towards a shared services finance model, there remains further opportunity to gain efficiencies in the P2P function and broader finance by streamlining functions and integrating people, processes and technology.


Option to locate P2P processing at JCU Singapore

►Transitioning P2P processing to JCU Singapore has a number of potential advantages:

► Leverage JCU’s global work force - Preliminary analysis suggests that administrative labour costs at JCU Singapore are ~60% of the labour costs in Australia. In addition to this, offshoring also often results in reduced overhead costs

► Increase business sustainability - Allow JCU Singapore staff to take on routine, non-complex procurement activities, enabling local staff to focus on more strategic initiatives

► Access to a greater pool of talent - Allows JCU to remain competitive as the complexity and volume of work increases and the right kind of talent becomes scarcer

►However, political implications of leveraging a global work force must be considered:

► It is critical that a robust business case is developed to support such an approach, addressing both the financial and non-financial costs/ benefits

► Following any decision, clear and early communication to staff, unions and the broader community will be vital

►Readiness to transition:

► The table below provides an overview transition readiness considerations across the P2P operating model. The most significant barriers to readiness relate to system capability and staff capacity.

EY was asked to assess whether JCU Singapore could be considered as a location for all JCU P2P Processes. In this context, the current state of purchasing at JCU Singapore was considered along with the broader state of readiness for transition. Our observations and findings follow.


Option to locate P2P processing at JCU Singapore (Cont.)

Element Considerations

Strategy & Governance

Using a traditional shared service approach, it would be expected that strategy and governance for the Australian campuses would be retained centrally and

locally. Therefore, Singapore’s current strategy and governance capability, is not a factor in determining transition readiness.

Policy & Process JCU Singapore has a documented procurement policy (but does not currently apply FMPM 711). On transition, FMPM711 should continue to be applied to

Australian Purchases. While, Singapore could apply its own policy locally, longer-term a single global policy (with relevant country exceptions) would be

recommended to drive synergies.

JCU Singapore has a heavy reliance on manual processes (as can be seen in Appendix D). Agreed simplified and automated process would be key to

realising the full benefits of transition. In terms of readiness JCU has two options for transition:

1. Transition P2P processes to JCU Singapore substantially as-is to achieve immediate labour savings (subject to capacity and technology capability )

and optimise processes post transition

2. Optimise the P2P processes prior to or in conjunction with transition to Singapore

This decision needs weigh the effort with optimising current P2P processes, against the risk of transferring inefficient processes, and the time value

of expected savings.

People & Organisation

The Singapore procurement function is a small operation within the CEOs office consisting of an Associate Director Operations and a Purchasing Officer and

is responsible for major purchases, with minor purchases being conducted by the business.

The strong service culture in Singapore would strongly align with and support the finance and procurement function in achieving University objectives.

However, additional Singaporean resources and training would be required to enable transition of JCU wide P2P processing to Singapore. Clear handover

points to JCU Singapore in terms of roles and responsibilities would be required to be defined as part of the transition.

Risks & Controls The Singapore and local P2P function rely heavily on manual controls (related to a lack of system functionality). The P2P controls framework could be

transitioned as is, however there is some risk associated with the manual sign off and validation of signatures. Clear delegations and systems based approval

processes would mitigate this risk to some degree. Defined rules and ideally automated controls will be required to obtain maximum benefit of transition.

Data & Technology

JCU Singapore does not currently use Spend Vision or FinanceOne technology to support its procurement function. We understand the provision of

FinanceOne to Singapore requires implementation of a Citrix solution or web based functionality, as well as resolution of Foreign exchange issues if it is to

be the global ERP. System capability is likely to be the largest barrier to the readiness to transition P2P processing to Singapore.

Recognising that often processing centres use their own systems and develop interfaces to clients systems, it is possible that JCU Singapore could use other

solutions, however, further investigation of existing and alternative systems capability and costs would be required to inform such a decision.

Performance Management

It is noted procurement performance management is more mature across the Singapore operation than local operations (including supplier performance and

evaluation and the inclusion of key result areas in staff position descriptions). On transition, clear service level arrangements would need to be established

and incorporated into relevant staff performance metrics.


Optimising the Procurement Operating Model

It should be noted that there is no single leading practice procurement operating model or reporting structure. However, based on JCU’s operating environment and current maturity, the following ‘to be’ procurement function structure is provided for consideration. In this model the central functions must maintain good communication with the faculties and divisions to ensure central functions remain relevant and continue to deliver value to end users.

Procurement Strategy

Strategy and

Governance

Controls and risk

management

** Where a category is faculties/division specific (eg Estates/IT ), it may be more practical to locate category management within the faculty/division rather than being managed centrally. These roles would still report to the CPO but would do so from outside the central procurement function. The role of the category manager is to own critical supplier relationships and serve as the single point of contact within the category

Shared Services

PO invoice matching

Accounts Payable

Travel and expenses

Supplier contract

compliance

Technical procurement practitioners Queensland Purchasing Accreditation Recommended, in

addition to experts in University policies and processes

Rules based process-

focused

Vice Chancellor

FaBs

Support procurement with:

Benefits tracking

Planning, budgeting and

forecasting

Financial analysis

Understanding of University processes, systems and

delegations

Chief Procurement Officer *

(or equivalent)

Leading the procurement function

Driving procurement performance

Ensuring the procurement function

effectively supports JCU in meeting its

objectives

Office of Commercial

Services

Complex tendering

Bid evaluation

Contract development &

Management

Operations

Commodity purchasing

Buying assistance

Executive Director

Finance and Resource Planning

Benefits of Structured Operating and Governance Model:

Spend leverage and aggregation

Knowledge and resource sharing

Procurement strategy and direction driven from the centre

Standardised method and process of market and supplier

engagement

Central team facilitates linking of business needs to

market and supply opportunities

Procurement Services

Quality control and

assurance

Procurement

improvement

Policy support services

Technical advice &

support

Category Management

Category management**

Appraise supplier

performance

Supply / demand

planning

Strategic sourcing


Technical specialist

practitioners

People & Organisation Opportunities


Frame Dependencies

PO1 ► Clearly define end-to-end procurement process

roles, responsibilities and accountabilities

• Each process has a process owner and

defined support contacts

► Roles, responsibilities and accountability

across the end to-end P2P process are unclear

► Support service for P2P processes and/or

systems are not known

M L 0-6

Organisational Restructure

PO2 ► Clearly define organisation and reporting

structure of faculty based FaBs and

purchasing/travel officers

► Incentivising compliance and improved

procurement performance (See PM4)

► FaBs are located within faculties but report to

finance, however anecdotally there may be

pressure on FaBs in the context of allegience

to the faculty as opposed to the finance

function, procurement requirements and better

practice procurement

M L 0-6



P03 ► Establish the position of CPO (or equivalent)

to provide a single point of accountability for

procurement across all JCU spend (see

example competencies and accountabilities on

following slides)

► There is a lack of capacity and accountability

for driving strategic procurement across JCU

► The strategic function is reactive and driven by

operational day to day pressures rather than

being proactive and driven by strategy

M L 0-6 Organisational Restructure

PO4 ► Introduce position specific training and

accreditation based on roles and

responsibilities. This should include regular

ongoing training in relevant subject matter and

use of key systems.

► Further information regarding Queensland

Government Purchasing accreditation is

available online at

http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/aboutus/BusinessAr

eas/QGCPO/Pages/default.aspx

► Stakeholders consistently identified a lack of

both onboarding and ongoing training for end

users as a key contributor to inefficiencies

across the P2P function

M M 0-6


Training to follow revised policy and

process

PO5

► Perform competency assessments, integrate

position descriptions and competency models,

building capability through recruitment, training

and accreditation

► There is a perceived lack of capacity and

capability to deliver strategic procurement

among other P2P functions at JCU

M M 6-12 Organisational Restructure

PO6 ► In conjunction with clarifying roles and

responsibilities, develop performance metrics

to incentivise compliance (See PM4)

► There is a lack of accountability and

consequences associated with failing to

comply with purchasing policies and

processes. Examples include purchasing

without a Purchase Order or necessary quotes

and failure to acquit credit cards in a timely

manner

M L 0-6


http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/aboutus/BusinessAreas/QGCPO/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.hpw.qld.gov.au/aboutus/BusinessAreas/QGCPO/Pages/default.aspx

People & Organisation Opportunities (Cont.)


Frame Dependencies

P07 ► Engage staff through communication and

training and build careers and respect for

procurement within the University

► High levels of absenteeism and staff working in

acting positions exist in the procurement

function

M M 6-12

Training Plan

PO8 ► Consider increasing the scope of shared

services to further centralise common

processing activities

► A number of shared services processes remain

fragmented (e.g rceieving and receipt of

invoices)

H M 6-12


Technology

PO9 ► Leveraging global work force opportunities

through transitioning processing to JCU

Singapore

► JCU does not take advantage of global labour

economies

H H 12+ Simplified consistent processes and

system functionality

Technology Capability in Singapore


Accountabilities: ► Drive whole–of-JCU Procurement improvement to realise sustainable procurement savings and achieve the JCU Corporate Procurement Plan objectives

► Drive procurement policy, governance and practice in line with JCU’s strategic objectives and business model

► Deliver benefits through the initiation of Category Management and value chain improvements

► Ensures the Procurement Function effectively supports its business customers in meeting its service delivery obligations

► Maintain effective relationships with QGCPO, other relevant organisations and industry bodies to share and integrate better practices

► Manage the JCU Procurement risk profile to be within acceptable University tolerances

► Build a high performing Procurement Team and a collaborative procurement culture across JCU

► Ensure Procurement governance and controls are embedded across JCU providing support across governance, legislation, business controls and Procurement business risk

► Embed a culture of Procurement improvement through the implementation of formal Procurement Improvement Programs aimed to deliver sustainable benefits across Procurement

► Drive the performance of a procurement business intelligence function focused on accurate analysis and generation of insights to Procurement decision making across JCU

► Develop Strategic Supplier Relationships across JCU’s supply base across understanding internal and external market conditions

► Work with business customers to drive improvement across Direct Spend to optimise Procurement and operations

Key Procurement Competencies: ► Positions Procurement within JCU

► Procurement strategy development

► Markets Procurement within JCU

► Defines governance and policy

► Sets benefits key performance indicators

► Measures benefits performance

Sample Chief Procurement Officer Accountabilities & Competencies

The Chief Procurement Officer (or equivalent) will lead the JCU Strategic Procurement Function. The CPO will be accountable for performance, driving both commercial value and operational benefits across JCU; embedding Procurement governance and controls, a culture of process improvement; and increasing capability levels across all Procurement disciplines.


Risks & Controls


Risks & Controls Findings

► Risks and controls are mapped and optimised

► Controls are automated and approvals workflowed based on:

► Defined and embedded delegation rules

► A single source of truth

► A risk based funds check threshold is established with monitoring via periodic variance analysis. Longer-term funds checks automated (subject to aggregation requirements)

► Approvals are streamlined where possible (e.g. single system based approval of both requisition and purchase order)

► Approval authority is considered in the context of:

► Risk and risk appetite

► Alignment with budget accountability

► Devolving most authority to the source

► PCI compliance is considered as part of the preferred supplier selection process

► Data requirements are assessed to improve data quality:

► Supporting visibility of purchases and decision making

► Reducing the risk of duplication of payment

Illustrative controls aligned to ‘to be’ processes (subject to system functionality) are included Appendix C.

► No clear link between risk tolerance and control design

► A reliance on manual controls and approvals

► The delegations framework is complex, with the register maintained in a spreadsheet, visible only to central finance staff (due to sensitivities regarding inconsistent delegations in terms of rank and “signature shopping” concerns)

► Anecdotal view that the delegations are overly burdensome and do not align with budget ownership

► Funds checks are:

► Performed for each transaction (irrespective of materiality)

► Duplicated

► May not be performed using accurate data

► There are additional and duplicated approvals driven by:

► Non-integrated manual processes and sytems

► Risk averseness and to provide comfort to senior delegates

► PCI compliance concerns create additional workload

► Current non-integrated systems, field definition and interface configuration adversley impacts visisbility, reporting and analysis

Further details regarding risk and control opportunities are identified in the Opportunity Maps in Appendix B and cross referenced with the opportunities below.


There is an absence of a clear link between risk tolerance and control design, a lack of clarity and transparency regarding delegations and a perception the procurement process is over-controlled. The P2P function places a heavy reliance on manual and detective controls, which are more expensive and less effective than automated controls. This reliance on manual controls indicates that JCU is likely underleveraging its investment in technology. There is an opportunity to optimise design of the P2P controls.


Risks & Controls Opportunities


Frame Dependencies

RC1 ► Review and simplify the delegations in the

context of risk appetite with consideration given

to:

• Alignment with budget accountability

• Devolving most authority to the source

• Adjusting the limits to be GST exclusive

► Increase transparency of the delegations or

automate workflow of approvals based on the

delegation framework with clear position and

cost centre and other accounting “rules” (e.g.

capital vs. expense)

► Leading practice is a ‘single source of truth’ for

delegations

► There is a perception of over control.

However, the dollar limits within the financial

delegation framework for procurement appear

reasonable. based on Univeristy‘s size and risk

appetite and a comparison to other University‘s

► The delegtaions framework is complex and

anecdottally there is a perceptiion of a lack of

alignment with budget responsibility

► The delegations register is maintained and

updated manually in an excel spreadsheet

(maintained by name). To which only Central

Finance have access

► A pain point raised was that only two officers

have delegation to authorise transactions

greater than $1 million, and due to the

segregation of duties both, officers need to be

available. Based on the expected frequency

and urgency of such transactions no

amendment has been proposed. However, in

this context it is important “acting” roles for

these positions are kept up to date (See also

RC7)

M M 0-6 Broader Program: Delegations

Framework Project. Note: mapping

will need to occur prior to

systemising approvals

Technology: Potential Identity

Management Solution and

orchestration package can be

leveraged to automate and

integrate workflow systems

RC2 ► System based requisition with application

controls to minimise the risk of inappropriate,

incomplete and inaccurate requisitions,

reducing rework

► Easy to follow instructions (See PP1& 2) and

provision of training (See PO4 ) would be

expected to improve compliance of requisitions

► Paper based, email and the free text format of

Webreq allow for incomplete and inaccurate

requests to be submitted, resulting in additional

workload

Note: While this risk of inaccurate data is mitigated

by the review process manual detect controls are

more expensive and less efficient than automated

prevent controls.

M H 6-12 Technology: Subject to JCU


system landscape


Risks & Controls Opportunities (Cont.)


Frame Dependencies

RC3 ► Establish an appropriate materiality threshold

for funds checks, with greater emphasis on

review of budget to actuals at the end of the

period

► Longer-term investigate:

• Automating the funds check in systems e.g.

FinanceOne (Subject to grouped OPF funds

transfers)

• Using new BI tool for material checks

► System application and automated vendor

controls would assist in improving efficiency

(See also DT9)

► A manual check is performed to confirm funds

are available for each transaction irrespective

of materiality

► This check is performed in FinWeb, however,

delays in data transfer, acquitals, and

preapayments, as well as the treatment of

capitlised costs for certain codes mean that

these checks may not be using accurate data

► The Purchasing Officer also performs a review

to identify if the request is in line with JCUs

purchasing policy

M L 0-6

RC4 ► The approval process is system supported,

based on defined and embedded delegation

rules (with no intermediaries)

► Requisition approval is via email or a physical

signature and review.

► Spendvision workflow capability (as used in the

Travel module) is not utilised for Spendvision

Purchase Orders.

► There are varying requirement to send

requisitions and Spendvision Purhcase Orders

for approval to different parties subject to

school processes

► Additional approvals may be included:

• Segregation of duties where a requisition

and order cannot be approved by the same

delegate (see also RC7)

• Risk averse culture often results in

additional off system approvals being

obtained to provide comfort to delegates

► Anecdotally there is an informal process in one

faculty of not seeking approval for purchases of

less than $2,000 (as they are within

Purchasing Officers Delegation)

H H 6-12

Technology: Subject to JCU


system landscape and automated

approval capability

Delegations: Broader program

streamlining and rules based

delegations

RC5 ► Remove additional funds check ► While funds availability is the responsibility of

the financial delegate, the Purchasing Officer

performs an additional funds check

M L 0-6




Frame Dependencies

RC6 ► As part of supplier qualification and selection,

PCI compliance should be a criterion and

included in contracts

• In the absence of systems that support

“two factor” authentication there is limited

opportunity to gain efficiencies

• An alternative is to pay these suppliers via

EFT

► JCUs concerns regarding PCI compliance of

vendors, has resulted in inefficincies where

vendors are provided with partial credit card

details and required to contact Purchasing

Officers to obtain remaining details

M L 6-12 Strategic sourcing:

Perform in conjunction with

strategic sourcing and supplier

consolidation

RC7 ► Confirm with auditors the potential to eliminate

the requisition and purchase order second

approval with approval only required if the

requestor is a delegate

► Where a system approval occurs a Purchase

Order should be provided directly to the

supplier without additional physical

authorisation

► Current policy requires approval of a purchase

requisition, and a subsequent approval of a

Purchase Order. The policy states the same

delegate can not approve both the Requisition

and the Purchase Order. Note: This may be

driven by the requisition approvals taking place

outside of systems and workflows

► Some purchase orders are printed and signed

physically before being sent to vendors. If

approval is in the system this is an extra

process step. The audit trail should maintain

the record the approving and releasing officers.

M L 0-6

RC8 ► Remove the additional Accounts Payable

check of supplier data, and have the second

check performed by the Systems Team,

ensuring segregation of duties of Accounts

Payable processing staff from supplier file

amendment

• JCU have identified a preference that

approval of new suppliers be included in

the role of Strategic Procurement, with a

view to improving category management

and strategic sourcing and minimising

leakage

► The Systems Team perform a re-check of

supplier source data in the load file as

performed by Accounts Payable.

L L 0-6




Frame Dependencies

RC9 ► Centralising goods receipting would provide

opportunities to manage and aggregate

demand, manage inventory levels and reduce

logistic costs

► As a result of the devolved processes there is

limited management of inventory as part of

procurement decisions with a tendency to be

reactive

M M 6-12 Technology: Devolved receipting

functionality and access

RC10 ► Remove additional reviews and drive

accountability (See also PM04)

► Accounts payable perform review of some of

the same information performed by Purchasing

Officers

M L 0-6

RC11 ► In conjunction PP8 & RC9 adopt a 3 way

match process

► Tolerance thresholds for matching should be

communicated and included in training of staff

► As a result of the devolved and manual

process to receive goods a two way match

occurs

► While there is a tolerance threshold for

matching in FinanceOne staff were not aware

of this with the perception that even a few

cents out would require investigation and steps

to rectify

M M 6-12 Technology: Devolved receipting

functionality and access

RC12 ► Subject to risk, remove the additional review of

Western Union file and drive accountability of

staff

Note: We understand that this may be driven by

the challenges of rectifying any errors overseas

payments.

► There is an additional review of the Western

Union payment file by the Manager Systems,

Process & Design/Manager Procure to Pay

L L 0-6

RC13 ► Acquittal timelines should be strictly adhered to

and enforced via consequences (See also

PM9)

► The bank has direct debit authority to settle

credit card balances. There is some risk in

settling these transactions before acquittal, as

charges may not be accurate

► The ongoing failure of card holders to acquit

credit cards in a timely manner in accordance

with policy. This results in data quality issues

(See DT7)

M M 0-6 Authority to suspend and cancel

cards is being endorsed by

University Senior management

RC14 ► Process invoices through FinanceOne without

a retrospective Purchase Order, subject to

driving compliance through performance

measures and monitoring

► There is anecdotal evidence of Purchase

Orders being created after goods have been

purchased and receipted

M L 0-6




Frame Dependencies

RC15 ► Optimise controls by defining a clear link

between controls, risks and risk appetite and

automating where possible

► There is no clear link between controls and

risks



system landscape- perform in

conjunction with implementing

system functionality


Data & Technology


Data & Technology Findings

► The current good practices will be retained:

► Performing Accounts Payable settlements via EFT(with no settlements via cheques)

► Existing automated controls in FinanceOne

► A broad base of employees across JCU have appropriate access to minimise manual requisitions, automate goods receipt and support timely processing

► Consistent with JCU’s IT strategy to maximise the functional footprint of existing strategic systems, where FinanceOne meets JCU’s needs, and is cost effective, JCU should add functionality to support end-to-end P2P process, including:

► Quotation and tender management

► Contract management

► Initiation of procurement

► e-procurement and integrated catalogues (recognising diverse needs purchases in a University environment)

► Automated workflow

► Scanning and potentially digitised functionality

► Web-based functionality upgrade

► Where FinanceOne functionality does not meet needs or is not cost effective, perform a market scan to determine whether to invest in legacy systems and interfaces or to identify alternative system solutions that can be integrated with FinanceOne

► Data warehouses will use standard forms across JCU supporting procurement decision making and performance management

► Purchasing processes rely on a number of manual processes including:

► Paper based forms and scanning

► Rekeying of data between systems

► Emails to obtain approvals

► There are non-integrated systems used in the P2P process resulting in inefficiencies. Systems include:

► Webreq - a web based requiistion form

► Spendvision - used for travel and credit card acquitals

► FinanceOne - the Finance system

► MEX - for maintenance requests and work-order management

► There are underlying access and forign currency reporting constraints meaning JCU Singapore cannot currently use FinanceOne

► Spendvision is leveraged differently across the University, with larger faculties using spendvision to monitor the progress of purchases, with smaller faculties relying on email folders

► Data quality is adversely impacted due to limited system validation (including free text) and integration. There is also a lack of understanding of the data flow and requirements for the end-to-end process

Further details regarding data and technology opportunities are identified in the Opportunity Maps in Appendix B and cross referenced with the opportunities below.


JCU P2P has a reliance on manual processes and non-integrated technology, suggesting an underleveraging of and underinvestment in system capability. This lack of integration impacts data quality and availability to support visibility, reporting and analysis of purchases. A lack of technology has also resulted in Spendvision being leveraged differently by different organisational units.


FinanceOne Functionality


Preliminary discussions were held with TechnologyOne to understand P2P functionality offered within FinanceOne. The figure below (sourced from TechnologyOne) illustrates the FinanceOne procurement solution. Those modules for which JCU holds a licence are circled in green, with the additional P2P modules discussed with FinanceOne circled in yellow.

While further investigation of the functionality is required by JCU, the table on the following page provides an overview of the additional P2P functionality that could be leveraged by JCU, as discussed with a FinanceOne representative.

Initial costing of modules as provided by TechnologyOne to JCU have been included in the table on the following page. Note: TechnologyOne have offered JCU a 10% discount on implementation costs (across P2P and other functionality being investigated by JCU) which has not been applied on the following page.

FinanceOne Functionality (Cont.)


Finance One Module Functionality Cost ($)

Purchasing While JCU holds a licence for the purchasing module there is additional functionality that could be leveraged to gain efficiencies and

improve JCU P2P:

► Functionality to support devolved procurement (See My Modules below)

► Increased automation of approvals and delegation limit checking via workflow (See Workflow Maintenance)

► Application controls via the implementation of a catalogue

► We further understand that FinanceOne is looking to move to web enabled functionality some time in the middle of next year. This

would be expected to improve ability to devolve access .

N/A

Consolidated Purchase

Requisitions

Consolidation of multiple requisitions from a supplier into a single Purchase Order. This would be expected to increase efficiency by

reducing the number of purchase orders and invoices, as well as potentially improving use of supplier volume discounts. Note it was

confirmed the Purchase Order would still contain detail to allow supplier to deliver to multiple locations.

Price not provided

Purchasing Quotations

Provides an application control to embed policy requirements for quotes at the point of requisition. It supports Request For Quote

creation (using a template), distribution, supplier quotes entry and quotation selection, as well as capture of data to monitor reasons for

exceptions to policy. The module can be workflowed. Further analysis of spend and the number of quotes sought annually by JCU is

required to inform the cost/benefit decision regarding this module. Devolved use would require the My Purchasing Quotations module

(see below).

Price: $15,664

Implementation: $10,100

Annual Maintenance: n/a

My Modules The my modules support devolved use of modules. The use of these modules would provide users across JCU capability to enter

requisitions directly to the system, providing application controls and the visibility required to track purchases. The efficiencies gained

through using these modules need to be analysed further in terms of the cost /benefit to JCU. Note: Although FinanceOne have

indicated a per user licence fee, negotiating alternative licence arrangements would be recommended, to provide flexibility.

Licenced on a named user basis

Contracts A contract management module and repository supporting tracking and monitoring of contracts including qualifications management,

such as insurances and variation management . The module can be workflow enabled and prompt users when actions are required.

There is also control capability to compare transactions processed against contracts to monitor contract compliance (e.g. price and

volume discounts).

Price: $43,294


Annual Maintenance: $9,741

Electronic Procurement Interfaces to supplier catalogues, punches out, returns a cart, Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) transmission of both order to the

supplier and receipt of invoice, and auto match. However, this is dependant on suppliers systems format being compatible and

allowing JCU access. On this basis it is thought that given JCUs market position, there may not be sufficient supplier benefit to warrant

investment in electronic procurement. As such it is recommended further consideration be given to collaborative solutions with other

universities.

Web Catalogue

Price: $7.832



Workflow Maintenance

(Connector)

Standard FinanceOne workflow is in use at JCU and allows for basic delegation approvals . The connector would allow for more

complex delegation rules to be embedded as a system control. This would require the mapping of delegations in the system which

could be quite complex and time consuming, potentially requiring customisation of the software.

Price: $15,664



Purchase Cards Similar functionality to Spendvision to support download of credit card transaction and acquittal, leveraging FinanceOne supplier

information and account codes. This could assist in improving data quality for analysis of purchase transactions. The system does

currently link credit card transaction to requisitions or purchase orders. However, it should be noted that the requirement to raise a

requisition for credit card spend is recommended to be reconsidered by JCU, as raising requisitions and purchase orders eliminates

the efficiencies of purchasing by card.

Price: $15,664



Data & Technology Opportunities


Frame Dependencies

DTI ► System visibility and access to relevant

students to assist in reducing work load and

on-boarding of research students (See PO4)

► Longer-term requisition system allows for

attachment supporting documentation, includes

system validation and inbuilt help

► Webreq location and functionality result in

additional workload for Purchasing Officers:

• Webreq while used by research students is

hidden from student view

• Webreq does not include the email address

of the party

• Quotes and supporting documents cannot be

attached until after a requisition submission

requiring additional effort to scan email and

combine pdfs in subsequent steps

• There is use of free text and no inbuilt

validation

• It is not considered intuitive by users and

there is no inbuilt guidance (Students

require significant assistance)

M M 6-12 Technology: Subject to technology

landscape decisions determine the

cost benefit of investing in Webreq

vs. other integrated system

capability

DT2 ► Consider system solution to monitor credit card

transactions and commitments and regular

reports to identify items requiring action

► JCU priorities and policy to be confirmed:

• Preferring the efficiencies of purchasing on

card, not raising a purchase order and

accepting a lack of visibility of commitments

• Preferring visibility of commitments and using

FinanceOne for all Purchase Orders (given a

requisition and Purchase Order is being

prepared anyway), with only minor one-off

non-preferred supplier transactions

purchased on card

► Solutions could include:

• Capturing data from requisitions

• Using existing IT help desk solutions to track

the progress of purchases

• Consider FinanceOne catalogue and e-

procurement functionality and associated

refinement of credit card use policy

► Spendvision is used differentially:

• FSE and MHMS raising Purchase Orders in

Spendvision to provide visibility of requisition

progress and follow up action required- staff

use the screen view which provides graphics

• Faculties with smaller spend do not use

Spendvision, but use email folders as a way

of tracking purchases

Note: The FSE & MHMS process of raising of

a Purchase Order mitigates some of the

efficiencies of purchasing via credit card.

► There is no record of these transactions in

FinanceOne until credit cards are acquitted

and in the case of smaller faculties no record in

a system at all until acquitted. This represents

a significant challenge in identifying

commitments, particularly as part of the year

end process.

H M 6-12

Technology

Governance: A decision is required

between the importance of

efficiency versus visibility of

commitments to JCU


Data & Technology Opportunities


Frame Dependencies

DT3 ► Longer-term consider a fully integrated end-

to- end system solution including quote tender

and contract management systems, as well as

reconsidering integrating MEX

Note: We understand previous investigation by

JCU considered MEX integration was not feasible

► Quotes and tenders are managed manually.

► There is currently no contract management

system adopted by JCU. Anecdotally some

contracts can not be located

► There is no integration between MEX (used for

maintenance and work orders) and

FinanceOne resulting in duplication of effort in

scanning and recording invoices as paid

M H 12+ Technology

DT4 ► Leveraging technology to dispatch Purchase

Orders to suppliers automatically. Investigate

the potential to:

• Include multiple address fields in

FinanceOne creditor files

• Add additional information to Purchase

Orders via free text fields

• Amend standard terms and conditions text or

consider different types of purchase orders

in FinanceOne

► Purchase Orders generated from FinanceOne

are not automatically sent to suppliers. They

are selectively emailed. Reasons include:

• A lack of trust of FinanceOne

• Purchase order contain standard payment

terms and conditions not applicable to all

suppliers

• Additional information not in the purchase

order is required to be sent

• The FinanceOne creditor files do not contain

the sales area contact details

M M 6-12

DT5 ► Determine if workaround for split orders and

partial receipting has any implications on

reporting and analysis:

• If so work with TechnologyOne to identify

and implement a solution

• If there is no impact, consider removing the

goods option if this results in rework

► Invoices are processed in FinanceOne as a

“good “ or “service” . However all Purchase

Orders requiring a “carry on” are processed as

a service, due to the functionality for goods

not working, resulting in the need to cancel and

re-raise purchase orders and process invoices

Note: We were unable to ascertain if this election

has any impact on data quality and reporting.

L M 6-12


Data & Technology Opportunities (Cont.)


Frame Dependencies

DT6 ► Information is captured in a way that allows for

visibility to perform analysis and inform

decision making

• Determine how to best use the 3 narration

filelds in FinanceOne

• Modify interfaces (subject to technology

decisions)

• Based on agreed use of fields develop

custom reports to support analysis

► The current interface configuration between

Spendvision and FinanceOne impacts data

quality and analysis. Key issues include:

• A 40 Character narration limitation, resulting

in multiple lines in Spendvision Purchase

Orders being condensed to a single 40

character line.

• Limited ability to perform analysis of spend

by supplier

• Only one attachment can be loaded to

FinanceOne, requiring scanning and

combining PDFs

• Not all information collected at requisition is

transferred used or entered in the finance

system e.g. who was the purchaser

M M/L 0-6

DT7 ► System solution to better capture or allocate

un-acquitted credit card transactions

leveraging information already available

► Credit cards transactions are coded to default

organisational units and expense accounts

until acquitted, impacting visibility of spend,

budget review and other analysis

H M 6-12

DT8 ► Single University-wide supplier file would assist

in vendor consolidation and associated

advantages

► FSE & MHMS each maintain an Excel supplier

data base for non FinanceOne vendors and

are looking to move web logins and passwords

to a locked box

H M 0-6

DT9 ► Review FinanceOne and Spendvision

functionality with vendors (including potential

for global rollout)

► Where functionality does not meet JCU

requirements undertake a market scan with a

view to developing an integrated environment.

► Existing systems functionality may not be fully

leveraged, or meet JCU‘s needs

H M 0-6 Technology: As a first priority a

Governance decision is required

regarding the system landscape


No official performance management framework for the procurement function exists at JCU. KPIs for both the procurement function and individuals do not align to the procurement plan and are not translated into actions at the employee level. Supplier performance and contract compliance is not officially managed and procurement benefits realisation is not tracked.


► A performance management framework that directly links to the Corporate Procurement Plan and Business Strategy:

► Performance is measured by KPIs driven by both qualitative and quantitative metrics fully integrate with overall business performance KPIs

► Monitor procurement performance on a periodic basis using a balanced scorecards and /or dashboards

► Procurement function KPIs are translated into actions down to employee level linking to KPIs of employees:

► Regularly review employee KPIs and provide timely feedback

► External benchmarking is used to identify performance gaps and set target performance levels:

► Performance gaps identified are reviewed against best practice and opportunities assessment completed to understand potential benefits

► Supplier performance is monitored regularly for compliance to contracts and service level agreements:

► A pre-populated balanced scorecard with agreed metrics and calculation logic should be built into key supplier contracts

► Benefits that are forecast and captured as a result of strategic sourcing and other procurement initiatives are tracked through to realisation

► Maverick spending and policy compliance is monitored regularly with process exceptions escalated for analysis and mitigation

► Currently JCU lacks a robust performance management framework and a set of performance metrics that relate to both the procurement function and individual employees

► Availability and quality of data to track performance is poor

► Lack of knowledge of roles, responsibilities and accountabilities makes it hard for procurement staff to know what they are responsible for. Clarity of roles and responsibilities will incentivise staff compliance and increase accountability

► No official supplier performance management is being carried out:

Contract compliance is unknown

Service levels and customer wiat time is unquantified

Preferred suppliers lists are not developed using supplier performance data

► No benchmarking is incorporated in planning and opportunity assessment for performance improvement across the procurement function

► Currently, JCU does not forecast, capture or track the realisation of benefits associated with strategic sourcing and other procurement savings initiatives

► Despite the move to a service culture customer and supplier satisfaction is largely unknown as JCU performance is not evaluated from a stakeholders perspective



Performance Management Opportunities

Ref Opportunity Issue Impact Effort Time Frame

Dependencies

PM1 ► Develop procurement function KPIs that link to

procurement plan and business strategy

► JCU does not have a well documented

procurement plan that links to overall strategy

H M 0-6 Strategy: Procurement plan linked to business strategy

PM2 ► Introduce a performance management process

and process owner

► JCUs procurement function performance is not

monitored

H M 0-6 Organisational Restructure

PM3 ► Develop balance scorecards incorporating

procurement function KPIs to measure

performance

► Could use a dashboard to ensure regular

review

► Staff feel the objectives of the procurement

function are not clear

H M 0-6 Data quality

BI Capability

PM4 ► Develop employee role KPIs that align to

delivering KPIs of the procurement function

and incentivise compliance

► Procurement staff targets are not aligned to a

procurement or business strategy

H M 0-6 Organisational Restructure Procurement plan and KPIs

PM5 ► Develop supplier performance management

framework and metrics

► Begin collecting quantitative and qualitative

data for key suppliers

► Include requirement for suppliers to report

agreed performance metrics including benefits

tracking as part of contract for supply

► Supplier performance is not monitored

► Suppliers are not held to account for under

performance

► Preferred supplier lists are not maintained

M M 6-12 Systems functionality for meaningful data collection

PM6 ► Incorporate external benchmarking review to

understand opportunities for improvement

► JCU procurement function is not compared to

best in class practice

M M 6-12 Data quality

PM7 ► Review the quality of the data required to

measure KPIs and supplier performance

• Consider longer-term leveraging BI

Functionality

► Performance analysis is limited as a result of

poor quality and unavailability of data

H M 0-6 ongoing

BI Project: Currently this will only address strategic reporting

Data quality: Incorporate in system design and reporting

PM8 ► Incorporate benefits realisation tracking into

the performance framework for key categories

► Benefits captured as a result of strategic

sourcing and other procurement initiatives are

potentially being eroded away as a result of

lack of management

M M 6-12 Opportunity assessments and strategic sourcing for spend categories

PM9 ► Strictly enforce suspension and cancellation of

credit cards

► A personal liability could be enforced for users

who do not acquitt cards on a timely basis

► Credit cards are not acquitted on a timely

basis resulting in spend being inaccurately

accounted for in the University's ledger

M M 0-6 Authority to suspend and cancel cards being endorsed from University senior management


Suggested Performance Metrics Procurement Function Metrics and Supplier Metrics

Example procurement function performance metrics

Number of purchase orders processed per procurement function FTE

Number of invoices processed per accounts payable FTE

Number of T&E reimbursements processed per accounts payable FTE

Total purchase value per procurement function FTE

Total cost per procurement function FTE

Cycle time in days to convert a purchase request into an approved purchase order

Cycle time in days from receipt of invoice until approved and scheduled for payment

Cycle time in days to approve and schedule T&E reimbursements

Cycle time in days to resolve an invoice error

Number of invoices without a Purchase Order

Percentage of invoice line items that are matched the first time

Number of active vendors in the master file per $1 million of purchases

Example supplier performance metrics

Product/service quality

Service Level

Correct Quantity

Delivered on-time

Customer wait-time (CWT)

Cost of goods/service

Savings/ benefits realisation

Level of adoption of systems (eg EDI)

Willingness to collaborate/share information

Level of certification

Ability to respond to unexpected demand or emergencies

Support and customer service

The following are examples of metrics used to measure both procurement function performance and supplier performance. It is important that JCU aligns its performance metrics with both the procurement strategy and University business plan to ensure KPIs drive behaviour towards University objectives and vision.


Sample Performance Management Scorecard

►Consumer satisfaction

index

►Vendor satisfaction

index

►Sector skills index

►Capability gap audit

►Training and

development index

►Retention rate –

procurement staff

►Staff satisfaction

survey

►Alignment of plans to

Category

►Timely execution of

procurement event

►Average cost of

procurement activity

►Value added productivity

Balanced Scorecard Perspectives

6.0 Innovation 2.0 Value 3.0 Capability and

Development

4.0 Effectiveness and

Efficiency 1.0 Stakeholders 5.0 Quality

► Service satisfaction

► Customer feedback

► Vendor satisfaction

► Procurement capacity

► Sector skills inventory

(including accreditation)

► Staff satisfaction &

retention

► Process effectiveness,

efficiency and economy

► Proportion of Category

Plans in place

► Procurement cycle times

► Procurement cost

► ROI

► Sector spend

► Forecast spend

► Sector savings

► Cost avoidance

► Leakage reduction

► Controls

simplification

► Procurement policy

compliance

► Demand

management

► Alternate

sourcing

strategies

► Industry

innovation

Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

►ROI factor

►Spend +/- 5%

►Spend under contract

►Savings +/-10%

►Avoidance +/-10%

►Reduction of

duplicate or un-

needed controls

►Orders made

through SRM

►PO compliance

►Demand reduction

►Sourcing through

alternative channels

►Uptake of innovative

solutions offered

Balanced Scorecard Measurements


Sample Supplier Performance Management Scorecard

► Contractual cost variances

► Product/deliverable cost

variances

► Total cost variances

► Costs against industry

benchmarks

► Invoice accuracy

► Terms of payment

► Product/deliverable quality

► Delivery in full (quantity)

► Need for returns/rework

► Risk management processes

► After sales service

► Value add

► Guaranteed product supply and service

level agreement

► Change management processes

► Scalable and flexible design

► Level of certification/qualifications

► Change of personnel

► Capability fit

► Ability to mobilise resource

► Turnover/absence rates

► Total spend on/offshore

► Perceived knowledge sharing

► Timesheet accuracy

► IR/provider headcount ratio

Balanced Scorecard Perspectives

2.0 Process 3.0 Quality 4.0 Personnel* 1.0 Finance 5.0 Relationship

► Total cost of supply

► Payment terms

► Value for money

► Product/service fit

► Consistent product/service

► Quality assurance

programs

► Additional value

► Personnel consistency

► Cultural fit

► Teaming

► Proficiency

► Frequency of delivery

► Flexibility/adaptability

to change

► Efficient effective

processes

► Industry compliant

processes

► Supplier collaboration

► Investment/alignment

with University and its

objectives

► Long term, value adding

relationship

► Willingness to share risk

Critical Success Factors (CSFs)

► Outcome requirements

► Quality review processes

► Ease of change requests

► Delivery delays

► Customer wait time on late deliveries

► Ability to react to unexpected

demand or emergencies

► Invoice disputes

► Use of industry standards

► Disruptions to business as usual

► Sustainable local processes

► Overall relationship

► Performance ratings

► Satisfaction ratings

► Number of issues raised

► Collaboration metrics

► Confidence to deliver

► Strength of relationship over

competitors

Balanced Scorecard Measurements

* This critical success factor specifically relates to service delivery


Sign-off


Sign-off

Signoff Authority Version Approval Comments

Draft version 1


Ernst & Young LLP

Assurance | Tax | Transactions | Advisory

About Ernst & Young

Ernst & Young is a global leader in assurance, tax, transaction and advisory services. Worldwide, our 167,000 people are united by our shared values and an unwavering commitment to quality. We make a difference by helping our people, our clients and our wider communities achieve their potential.

Ernst & Young refers to the global organization of member firms of Ernst & Young Global Limited, each of which is a separate legal entity. Ernst & Young Global Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, does not provide services to clients. For more information about our organization, please visit www.ey.com

© 2013 Ernst & Young LLP Published in India. All Rights Reserved.

This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither EYGM Limited nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor

Appendix A: Stakeholder Engagement


Stakeholder Engagement

Date Stakeholder Department Role Context

11/11/2013 Susan Kinobe Financial & Business Services Manager, Finance Teams Kick-off meeting

11/11/2013

Tom Te Whaiti Finance & Resource Planning

Program Manager (Enablers)

Program and project briefing incl interrelationships with other projects

11/11/2013 Iesha Stewart David Eaton

Commercial Services Commercial Services

Senior Procurement Officer Manager, Commercial Services A/Director, Commercial Services

30 min pain-point discussion

11/11/2013 Emma Griffiths Financial Reporting & Corporate Services

Senior Finance Officer 30 min pain-point discussion

11/11/2013 Kasey Chapman Penny Skerritt

Financial & Business Services Financial & Business Services

Manager. Finance (FSE) Team Leader, Purchasing & Travel (FSE)


11/11/2013 Lisa Iafano Financial & Business Services A/AP Team Leader 30 min pain-point discussion

11/11/2013 Jess Neilson FaBS SS - FMH&MS Team Leader - Purchasing & Travel 30 min pain-point discussion

11/11/2013 Rachel Lowe Financial & Business Services Manager, Finance (Divisions) (Cairns) 30 min pain-point discussion

12/11/2013 Petrina Jones Financial & Business Services Manager Systems, Process & Design | Manager Procure to Pay



Stakeholder Engagement (Cont.)


13/11/2013 Kasey Chapman Penny Skerritt Lisa Iafano Rachel Lowe Patricia Brand Petrina Jones Sonya van Bremen Robyn Fallon Matthew Joyce Susan Kinobe Tom Te Whaiti Kelvin Liu ( Apology) Glen McGregor (Apology) Geoff Murray (Apology)

Financial & Business Services FaBS SS - FSci&Eng Financial & Business Services Financial & Business Services Finance & Resource Planning Financial & Business Services School of Medicine & Dentistry Estate Office Estate Office Financial & Business Services Finance & Resource Planning Singapore Campus Systems Process & Design Planning & Development

Manager. Finance (FSE) Team Leader, Purchasing & Travel A/AP Team Leader Manager, Finance (Divisions) (Cairns) Executive Director Manager Systems Process & Design/ P2P School Manager Deputy Director Deputy Director, Planning & Develop Manager, Finance Teams Program Manager (Enablers) Associate Director Operations Snr Business Analyst (Business Review & Improve) Manager, Capital Projects

Initial planning workshop

15/11/2013 Penny Skerrit FaBS SS - FSci&Eng Team Leader, Purchasing & Travel Walkthough Process

15/11/2013

Vicki Hamilton Tim O'Dea

Corporate Planning & Perform Corporate Planning & Perform

Director, Corporate Planning & Performance Project Manager, Business Intelligence

Scope of the BI Project

15/11/2013

Robyn Fallon Matthew Joyce

Estate Office Estate Office

Deputy Director Deputy Director, Planning & Develop

Walkthrough Procurement Estate Office

18/11/2013 Jonathan Churchill Information Technology & Resources Director, IT & R Finance Technology landscape




18/11/2013 Lisa Iafano Trisha Flemming Emma Griffiths (Apology) Jonathan Edwards (Apology) Christine Birnie Ashlea Titasey Jess Nielsen Penny Skerrit Leonie Pinches Renee Chanthagoon

Financial & Business Services Financial Operation & Servcies Financial Reporting & Corporate Services Financial Reporting & Corporate Services Financial Reporting & Corporate Services FaBS SS- Divisions FaBS SS - FMH&MS FaBS SS - FSci&Eng FaBS SS - FAE&SS FaBS SS FLB&CA

A/AP Team Leader Team Leader, Purchasing & Travel Senior Finance Officer Finance Officer Finance Officer Client Services Officer Team Leader - Purchasing & Travel Team Leader, Purchasing & Travel Client Services Officer Finance Officer

Improvement workshop to confirm understanding of current state and inform design of ‘to be’ state

19/11/2013

Susan Kinobe Petrina Jones

Financial & Business Services Financial & Business Services

Manager, Finance Teams Manager Systems Process & Design/ P2P

Feedback and Validate Improvement Workshop Feedback and Validate Improvement Workshop

19/11/2013 Trisha Flemming Financial Operation & Services Team Leader, Purchasing & Travel Delegations

20/11/2013

Lisa Iafano Danielle Walsh Lacie Whitehouse

Financial & Business Services Financial Operation & Services Financial Operation & Services

A/AP Team Leader Client Service Officer Client Service Officer

Accounts Payable Walkthough

20/11/2013 Petrina Jones Financial & Business Services Manager Systems, Process & Design | Manager Procure to Pay

P2P System Functionality and Future Plans




20/11/2013 Emma Griffiths Financial Reporting & Corporate Services Senior Finance Officer Capital Acquisitions Process

25/11/2013 Kelvin Liu Vinabelle Hermoso

Singapore Campus Singapore

Associate Director Operations Manager, Purchasing

P2P Process Singapore

25/11/2013 Penny Skerrit FaBS SS - FSci&Eng Team Leader, Purchasing & Travel Clarify workflow Spendvision

28/11/2013 Susan Kinobe Financial & Business Services Manager, Finance Teams Project update and clarification of brief and timing

29/11/2013

Robyn Fallon Vicki Scott Alex McClure (Apology) Bhanuka Ratnayake

Estate Office Construction & Maintenance Construction & Maintenance Construction & Maintenance

Deputy Director MEX System Assistant Supervisor Construction & Maintenance Building Information Systems Administrator

Discussion MEX process and integration with Purchasing Process

3/12/2013 David Eaton Commercial Services Manager, Commercial Services A/Director, Commercial Services

Discussion of Strategic Purchasing

4/12/2013 Susan Kinobe Financial & Business Services Manager, Finance Teams Teleconference University of New England to discuss P2P Finance Functionality

10/12/13 Susan Kinobe Tom Te Whaiti Craig Butcher

Financial & Business Services Financial & Business Services Commercial Services

Manager, Finance Teams Program Manager (Enablers) Manager, Strategic Procurement

Page turn of ‘to be’ state prior to Validation Workshop




11/12/13 Susan Kinobe Petrina Jones Craig Butcher


Manager, Finance Teams Manager Systems Process & Design P2P Manager, Strategic Procurement

Webex with FinanceOne re Functionality

12/12/2013

Penny Skerritt Lisa Iafano Rachel Lowe Patricia Brand Petrina Jones Sonya van Bremen Susan Kinobe Tom Te Whaiti Kelvin Liu Vinabelle Hermoso Glen McGregor Craig Butcher Kasey Chapman (Apology) Robyn Fallon (Apology) Matthew Joyce (Apology) Geoff Murray (Apology)

Financial & Business Services Financial & Business Services Finance & Resource Planning Financial & Business Services Financial & Business Service School of Medicine & Dentistry Financial & Business Services Finance & Resource Planning Singapore Campus Singapore Campus Systems Process & Design Commercial Services Financial & Business Services Estate Office Estate Office Planning & Development

Team Leader, Purchasing & Travel A/AP Team Leader Manager, Finance (Divisions) (Cairns) Executive Director, FRP Manager Systems Process & Design P2P School Manager Manager, Finance Teams Program Manager (Enablers) Associate Director Operations Purchasing Officer Snr Bus Analyst (Bus Review & Improve) Manager, Strategic Procurement Manager. Finance (FSE) Deputy Director Deputy Director, Planning & Develop Manager, Capital Projects

To be State validation workshop

13/12/13 Susan Kinobe Petrina Jones Craig Butcher


Manager, Finance Teams Manager, Capital Projects Manager Systems Process & Design P2P Manager, Strategic Procurement

Teleconference University of South Australia to discuss P2P Finance Functionality


Appendix B: Opportunity Maps


Opportunities – Purchase Requestion, Process PO, Submit to Vendor (Minor <$5k)


Purchase Requisition, Process PO, Submit to Supplier (Minor <$5K)

FaBS

Pur

chas

ing

Off

icer

Requ

esto

r (S

taff

/St

uden

t)Su

pplie

rPu

rcha

sing

Del

egat

eFi

nanc

ial D

eleg

ate

(or

Nom

inee

)

Purchasing need <$5k

Prepare RequisitionWebreq/Paper/

Email

Email purchase order to supplier/ or

web purchase

Authorised by Financial

Delegate and complies?



Within POs delegation limit?

Yes

Yes

Purchase Order Received

Need for purchase and

funds available?

Yes

Raise Purchase Order In Spendvision

(FSE & MHMS only)

No

Yes

Authorised by Purchasing Delegate

No

Process Purchase

Order

PP3

DT1

Vendor Accepts Cr Cards

Yes

Yes

RC 3

RC2

Raise Purchase

Order

RC 4

PP4

DT2

PP5

RC 6

RC 4

YesFunds available

RC 5

Yes

No

Email notification of purchase order status received

Email requestor to notify purchase

order status

Legend:

Process Decision Off Page Ref OpportunityAlternative

Process

Opportunities – Purchase Requestion (Major <$5k)


Purchase Requisition (Major > $5k)

FaB

s P

urc

has

ing

Off

icer

Req

ues

tor

(Sta

ff o

r st

ud

ent)

Fin

anci

al D

eleg

ate

(or

No

min

ee)

Purchasing need >$5k

Prepare Paper requisition or

email and attach supporting documents

Is there a Preferred Supplier?

Obtain quotes:- $5-$20k 2 written quotes-$20-$200k 3 written quotes and evaluation

Is purchase >$200k or high

risk?

Liaise with CSO and develop written

procurement plan and RFT

Yes

PP3

No

Yes

No


funds available?

RC 3


Delegate?

DT3

Yes

DT1

RC4

PP6



Funds availableYes

Raise Finance One Purchase

Order

RC 5

Legend:


Process

Note: Supporting Documents IT includes IT approval – Maintenance MEX requisition

Opportunities – Purchase Order (Major <$5k)

Legend:


Process


Opportunities -Creditor Setup and Maintenance

Legend:


Process


Opportunities – Receive Goods/ Services and Process Invoice


Receive Goods/Services & Process Invoice

Acc

ou

nts

Pay

able

Req

ues

tor

(Sta

ff o

r St

ud

ent)

Sup

plie

rFi

nan

cial

Del

egat

eFa

Bs

Pu

rch

asin

g O

ffic

er

Run Document Checking Report

(Batch)

Process Purchase

OrderGoods sent/service

performed

Receive goods/service

Payment authorised?

PP 8

Yes Enter invoice

and attach scan PO in

FinanceOne

Invoice matches goods/service %

complete ?

Yes

Resolve issue

No

Auto 2 way Match

PP 9

RC 11

Pass Matching

RC 9

Issue Payment

Resolve and determine matched

amount

Less than $5k and supplier accepts Cr

Card? Finance OnePO Previously

Raised


funds available?

Authorise Request for PaymentSign or email

No

Enter invoiceand attach scan of

supporting documents

Second Officer (subject to $ limits)

approves and posts (Batched)

No

Yes

DT 5

PP10

Receive Invoice email or hard copy

Sign invoice ok to pay and scan and

email or send email approval

Yes

Submit Invoice

PP 8

Receive notification

Requisition raised and

Order placed with supplier ?

Email invoice and confirm good/

service received

Request for Payment

Required?

Yes

Credit Card

Acquittal

Confirm Card Charged

Yes

Yes

Complete Request for Payment, Sign Invoice OK to Pay

scan and email

No

No

Authorisation to pay received

No

Yes

Combine invoice and approvals and

email

Yes

Email invoice and confirm good/service received and

advise Request for Payment provided

PP 6

RC 10

No

Is vendor setup?

Creditor Setup

No

Yes

No Pay by Credit Card

Process Purchase

OrderLegend:


Process

Opportunities – Issue Payment

Legend:


Process


Issue Payment (FinanceOne)

Acc

ou

nts

Pay

able

Receive Good/

Services

Generate Creditor Selection Report Based on Type of Payment Run and

Dates

Auto email of remittance (if email

in system)Correct amount

and Type

Save onto systems drive and generate

EFT File

Import File (ComBiz)

Dual Authorisation

Finalise FinanceOne Payment Run

Domestic

ForeignImport File

(Western Union)

Dual Authorisation plus additional

reviewEnd

RC 12

Opportunities – Credit Card Acquittal

Legend:


Process


Credit Card Acquittal

Ver

ifie

r

Car

d h

old

er

(FaB

P

urc

has

ing

Off

icer

or

End

U

ser)

Syst

ems

Load Credit Card Transactions

Scan Invoices

Match all supporting

documentation(Purchase Order,

Invoice) & Code

SubmitExceeds

Threshold

Authorise Acquittal

Yes

Receive Goods/Services

RC 13

EndAutomatic upload journal of acquittal

No

DT6

DT7

Appendix C: ‘To Be’ Process Illustrative Examples


Overarching Decision Tree (Current Process)


Identify Need

Is there a legitimate need

for the purchase?

Yes

No

Is there a preferred supplier?

Raise Paper Purchase

Requisition and Attach Quotes and Financial Approval

Yes

Is purchase for >$5k and <$20k?

No

Requisition for purchase of IT?

Liaise with ITYes

Requisition for Estate Office work order purchase?

Yes

Obtain 2 written quotes

Is purchase for >$20k and <$200k?

Yes

Obtain 3 written quotes

Yes

Is purchase for less than <$5k?

No

Does vendor accept credit

card?

Is there a standing offer

arrangement in place?

Supplier receives order

Purchase with Credit Card directly

with Supplier

Raise MEX Request and Liaise with Estate Office

Has financial approval been

obtained?

Will the requisition pose a risk to Health

& Safety

Perform Risk Assessment

(Riskware or Chem Watch)

Reference delegations register and obtain Financial delegates approval

No

Yes

Yes

No

Is the purchase >$200k or high

risk?

Develop written procurement plan and RFT/RFP with

CSO

Yes

No

No

No

FaBs Raise Purchase Order in

FinanceOne

Submit to FaBs

Raise WebReq Requisition and

Provide Approval

Yes

Does Purchaser have purchasing delegation with

credit card?

YesYes

No

No

Is the purchase <$5k

No

Yes

‘To Be’ Illustrative Process - Overarching


Overarching ‘To be’ Mega Process (Subject to System Functionality)

Cat

egor

y M

anag

emen

t C

omm

erci

al S

ervi

ces

Proc

urem

ent

Serv

ices

Ope

rati

ons

(Pur

chas

ing)

Ope

rati

ons

(Rec

eivi

ng)

Fina

nce

(Sha

red

Serv

ices

)

Start Category DefinitionRequirements /

Specification Definition

Category Strategy Development

Usage and Compliance

Management


Strategic Sourcing End

Start Plan Contract Manage ContractExecute Contract

Define position, spend, complexity

Specifications met through tailoring

Manage Contract Compliance

Set up in contact management system

End

Supplier Stratification

Start Supplier Integration

Supplier Performance Management

Supplier Development

Supplier Collaboration

End

StartStrategy & Vision

DefinitionPerformance Value Drivers Definition Metrics Definition

Performance Goal & Target Setting

Embed/ Integration Process

Results Reporting End

StartRequisition Processing

Purchase Order Processing

Receive Goods and Services

Invoice Processing Issue Payment End

Procurement goals associated with critical success factors and prioritised

performance drivers

Established and agreed KPIs and Scorecards

Market position, category complexity

identifies relationship

Set up contract compliance

Process Purchase

OrderLegend:

Process Decision Off Page Ref Risk/ControlSub-Process

‘To Be’ Illustrative Process- Requisition & Purchase Order


Create Requisition and Process Purchase Order (Subject to System Functionality)

Fina

ncia

l D

eleg

ate

Req

uest

or

(Stu

dent

/Sta

ff)

Purc

hasi

ngSu

pplie

r

Enter search Criteria(product/supplier

etc.)

Is item in catalogue

Create Catalogue Requisition

Yes

Review and Submit

No

Create Non- Catalogue

Requisition

Specify details (Quantity,

Category/Item/Supplier)

Obtain and attach quotes:- $5-$20k 2 written quotes-$20-$200k 3 written quotes and evaluation

Budget Authorisation/

Transfer ?

Approve Requisition?

Catalogue Requisition

PO Automatically Generated and Sent

to Supplier

Receive Purchase Order

Review Approved Requisition

Non-Catalogue Requisition

Generate PO and Send to Supplier

Receive Goods

Identify need

Review Purchasing Policy

Buying Channel Exists?

Assess Risk

No

Credit Card

Use Buying ChanelYes

Expense Reimbursement

SourcingContract

Management

Is spend one-off less than <$5k

Yes

Catalogue/ Purchase Order

No

Credit Card

Direct Invoice

2.R2

2.R1

2.R2

2.R1

‘To Be’Illustrative Process- Receipt Goods & Payment


Receive Goods and Process Invoice (Subject to System Functionality)

Supp

lier

Ope

rati

ons

(Rec

eivi

ng)

Fina

nce

(Sha

red

Serv

ices

Acc

ount

s Pa

yabl

e)Re

ques

tor

(Sta

ff o

r St

uden

t)

Create Requisiti

on

Send Goods/Perform Service

Confirm and Determine % of

Service Complete

Services

Receive GoodsInspection Required? Enter Goods/

Services Received and Accepted

Manage Inventory

Inspect Goods

Yes

No

Send Invoice

Electronic Invoice?

Goods

Purchase Order on Invoice?

Does Invoice Match Goods/

Services Received

Approve Matched Invoice for Batch

Processing

3 Way Match Pass Matching Requirements

4.R1

Resolve and determine match

4.R5

Enter meta dataNo

Resolve issue

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

Yes

No

Specify Invoices to be paid

Exceptions?

Manage Exceptions

Yes

Receive Payment

Create EFT Payment Batch

Approve PaymentRun Payment

Process

Payment Successfully

MadeYes

Resolve issues

5.R6

No

No

3.R1

Goods

3.R3 3.R4

Send damaged goods to vendor

Receive damaged goods

Damaged Goods

3.R2

4.R3

4.R2 4.R3 4.R4

5.R1

5.R1

5.R7

EFT

5.R2

4.R5

‘To Be’ Illustrative Process- Risks & Controls


Ref Risk Controls

Mega Process Consideration

0.R1 Goods are not procured timely and efficiently to meet

organisational objectives

► Updated code of conduct and purchasing policies and procedures, including delegations and authorisation requirements

► Automated requisition, purchasing, receiving and inventory systems

► Appropriate organisational structure (Centralised and shared service vs. decentralised)

► Qualified and well trained staff, including executive oversight

► Regular and effective communication among executives

0.R2 Cost savings opportunities are not recognised or excessive

spending is incurred


► Enterprise-wide contracts and processes to enforce adherence to contracts

► Rigorous and robust budgeting and monitoring procedures

► Systems applications controls

► Periodic self-analysis of purchasing data

0.R3 Systems and data are inappropriately or improperly

manipulated

► Restrict data and system access to appropriate personnel

► Align system and functional module access to personnel based on need and authority

0.R4 Misstated financial information and/or loss of assets due to

error and fraud

► Adequate staffing to ensure segregation of duties

► Segregate duties between incompatible functions

Vendor Selection and Contracting

1.R1 Inappropriate vendors are used to procure goods/services

which does not result in the optimum combination of cost,

quality and service


► System application controls

► Vendor Master File controlled for completeness accuracy & validity

1.R2 Contracts/Commitments are not entered into appropriately

and/or are not properly managed



► Review of significant contracts for financial statement disclosure

► Monitor and analyse spend and compliance with procurement polices

1.R3 Inaccurate, incomplete, or duplicate vendor data, resulting in

inefficiencies, lack of ability to capitalise on favourable

payment terms and incorrect reporting


► Vendor Master File controlled for completeness accuracy & validity

‘To Be’ Illustrative Process- Risks & Controls (Cont.)


Ref Risk Controls

Requisition to Purchase Order

2.R1 Goods and services are inappropriately procured ► Updated code of conduct and purchasing policies and procedures, including delegations and authorisation requirements


► Segregation of duties

► Automated requisition, purchasing, receiving and inventory systems

► Cost centre budget to actual reviews on a periodic basis

► Periodic review of Purchase Orders vs. Non-Purchase Order Purchases

2.R2 Coding of purchases to the system is not accurate ► Purchasing, inventory, payment and accounting systems interface, reconciliation is performed, management follow up and

resolve un-reconciled items

► Purchasing application is configured to restrict purchases, receipts and invoices to defined suppliers in the vendor master and

defined goods and services in the item master file

Receiving

3.R1 Goods Receipts do not comply with order specifications ► Review of bill of lading, packing slip, purchase order and material is conducted on receipt

► System matches purchase order, receiving report and invoice (3 Way Match)

3.R2 Vendor returns are not identified on a timely basis and vendor

credits are not applied to future purchases

► Specified goods are inspected for quality purposes and segregated if they don’t meet standards

► Formal tracking and application of vendor credits

► System automation related to vendor credits

3.R3

Good receipts are not recorded accurately or in the correct

period

► Automated requisitioning, purchasing, receiving and inventory system

► Receiving log and system receipts reconciled

► Accruals performed to identify and record liabilities in proper period

► Physical counts of inventory performed to verify levels

3.R4 Fictitious or duplicate receipts are recorded ► System matches purchase order, receiving report and invoice (3 Way Match)

► Receiving log and system receipts reconciled

► Physical counts of inventory performed to verify levels

Invoice Processing

4.R1 Liabilities are not recorded in appropriate period ► Periodic accruals performed

► Unmatched invoices reviewed at period end

► Cost centre budget to actual review performed on periodic basis

‘To Be’ Illustrative Process- Risks & Controls (Cont.)


Ref Risk Controls

4.R2 Inaccurate, fictitious or duplicate vendor invoices (price,

quantity, terms) are processed


► System applications controls


► Automated requisitioning, purchasing, receiving, and inventory systems

► Cost Centre budget to actual review performed on a periodic basis

► Periodic analysis of payment data

4.R3 Payments related to contracts may be inconsistent with

contract terms


► Review of invoices prior to payment


4.R4 Credit/debit memos are inaccurate or not authorised according

to policy



4.R5 Discrepant invoices are not resolved timely and appropriate ► System application controls


Payment

5.R1 Payments are not recorded accurately in the correct period ► Updated code of conduct and purchasing policies and procedures, including delegations and authorisation requirements

► System applications controls



► AP aging/ sub-ledger is reviewed and reconciles to the GL

► Bank reconciliations are prepared and reviewed

► Proposed payment listing is reviewed and approved prior to payments

5.R2 Inappropriate EFTs processed

(Note controls R3 to R5 have been removed as these are not

relevant to JCU)



► Cost center budget to actual review performed on a periodic basis

► Bank reconciliations are prepared and reviewed

5.R6 Payments not issued to vendors on a timely basis resulting in

relationship damage and/or inability to secure credit



► Regular and effective communication among executives

5.R7

Optimal cash flow opportunities (e.g. early payments, missed

discounts, late charges) are not capitalised on when issuing

payments



Appendix D: Singapore Current Process


JCU Singapore Current Process

Legend:


Process


Appendix E: Implementation Plans


Implementation Plans


Appendix F: Interview Quotes


Interview Quotes

Strategy & Governance:


Interview Quotes (Cont.)

People & Organisation:



Policy & Process:



Risks & Controls:

Data & Technology:

Performance Management:


Appendix G: Change Management & Culture


Change Management & Culture

► Change management enables change across the various elements of the P2P model operating model to be integrated to achieve the desired results.

► The transition could be particularly challenging for JCU for a number of reasons including:

► The cultural shift required to obtain successful outcomes, including a shift to a whole-of JCU rather than a siloed view, the notion of academic vs. administration staff functions, and the incentivisation of accountabilities

► Change fatigue due to broader change agenda (including the organisational restructure) and consequences incorrectly attributed to this project

► The changes will have implications across divisions and faculties across the university. These will require capability and knowledge to be developed across the University.

► In order to overcome the challenges outlined above, change management and communication will be key to:

► Increasing the readiness for change amongst stakeholders across the University

► Assessing and supporting JCU in building its capability

► Increasing speed and effectiveness of the change

► Enabling the changes to be sustained so that the objectives can be achieved and benefits realised

► As initial steps towards various stakeholders across JCU have been consulted throughout the project to identify

opportunities for improvement and ownership involving operational stakeholders


Change Management in the JCU Context

An effective change management approach is based upon creating the conditions for success within an organisation to enable them to realise the benefits of the transition taking place and keep these sustainable. In the JCU context, this will involve leveraging the strength that already exists within the organisation in order to transform the procurement function and drive the improvement. A practical methodology can be used that delivers outcomes throughout the end to end performance improvement process, whilst recognising the journey that individuals need to take.

The diagram indicates three key critical success factors for change (highlighted in yellow) which can enable JCU to minimise risk and realise sustainable benefits. These from part of the implementation plan outlined in Appendix E:

► Engage and Manage Stakeholders - The purpose of a Stakeholder Engagement Strategy and Communication Plan is to facilitate the effective delivery of project activities and improve stakeholder understanding and commitment to future changes being introduced within JCU

► Align the Organisation - Aligning JCU and its impacted

stakeholders to the changes the procurement transformation is likely to introduce. These will be critical to driving the change in a sustainable manner and realise their intended benefits.

► Transition the people - Transitioning the people refers to

understanding the impacts and readiness of individuals who need to change, ensuring the right people are in the right roles and the provision of targeted training and support to develop capability.


Culture in the JCU Context

To specifically address organisational culture it is necessary to close the gap between desirable and actual behaviours through a structured program of behavioural change.

A methodology can be used that centres on making culture tangible to generate and sustain desired culture, through targeting the ways in which people behave.

* Based on model developed by David Ripley PhD, 2002 and Dr Thomas F Gilbert, 1996

Ernst & Young’s Behavioural Engineering Model

The diagram illustrates the six drivers of behaviour that need to be aligned in order to close the gap between actual and desired behaviours.

► The model recognises there are factors JCU can control directly to

influence behaviours, and those which increasingly depend upon the will and cooperation of individuals. To deliver real change all of these levers must be applied and aligned, to encourage the behaviours that JCU requires in order to improve its P2P Process.

► This assumes that the desired behaviours can be articulated based

on the JCU and procurement vision and objectives.


Benefit Leakage

Failing to drive changes to behaviour to align to the operating model can cause significant leakage to expected benefits. Outlined below are some examples of how benefits can be lost along the course of a transformation program.


James Cook University Procurement Process … of, and discussions with management. ... Founded in...

Documents

Transcript of James Cook University Procurement Process … of, and discussions with management. ... Founded in...