THE SABO INVOICE PROCESSING SYSTEM

TEAM 3FINAL PRESENTATION

SATHEESH KUMAR CHANDRAN, VIKRAM THOUTA, NAJI ABDELWANIS, BLISS ALTENHOFF, JAMES SALLEY, JONATHAN RYBICKI

PROJECT OVERVIEW:

•Client – Student Affairs Business Operations

•No of departments – 16 • Job Classification – Buyer, Approver,

Processor

•Buyer – Makes a Purchase either through Buy Ways or from an outside vendor.

•Budget Head – Approves the purchase and forwards the invoice to the fiscal analyst.

•Fiscal Analyst – Checks the purchase for contract violation and makes payment.

MISSION STATEMENT: INVOICE PROCESSING PROJECT

Product description A process for approving and processing invoices through SABO

Benefit proposition Maintain customer satisfaction, saves time and paper, and reducing the number of second and third party approvals

Key business goals 1. 95% of invoices are completely processed within 10 days

2. Reduce the number of paper copies by 50%

3. Develop standardized process flow chart by May 2012

Primary market Clemson University Student Affairs

Secondary market Other departments within Clemson University

Assumptions and Constraints Expedited purchases must utilize BuyWays System.

Stakeholders Buyers (Employees), Budget Heads, SABO Fiscal Analysts, Procurement Department, Vendors

PROJECT 1: NEEDS ANALYSIS

6-PRIMARY AND 42 SECONDARY NEEDS IDENTIFIED

• The invoice process minimizes paper work.

• The invoice process is quick.

• The invoice process is simple and consistent.

• The invoice process adheres to contracts wherever possible.

• The invoice process provides feedback to all stakeholders involved in the process.

• The invoice process ensures that the budget hierarchy is understood and followed.

PROJECT 2: TARGET SPECIFICATION

•60 Metrics were generated from 42 needs

•In some cases, due to time restriction subjective measures were considered.

•3 departments out of 16 were considered for the benchmarking purpose.

•Ideal and marginal acceptable values for the metrics were obtained for the respective metrics.

PROJECT 3: CONCEPT DEVELOPMENT

•This was the fun part.

•The entire process was divided into “Buying” and “Processing” and concepts were developed separately.

•Using the concept combination tables - 8 concepts for : Buying section - 6 concepts for : Processing section were developed

•All the concepts were evaluated using the concept selection matrix.

PROJECT 4 : OVERVIEW

• So, the final concept included ,

-Emphasizing the use Buy Ways with an Added Tutorial.

-An E-mail Exclusive System (use of drop box and adobe digital signature) with a Digital Archive and Tutorials.

-Maintaining an online spreadsheet that keeps track of the inventory.

-Maintaining an online spreadsheet that keeps track of the list of vendors.

• Four weeks of testing was carried out in two different departments.

ITERATION 1: IMPLEMENTATION AND FEEDBACK

•Test department – Clemson Housing

•Consists of – 1 Buyer, 2 Budget heads, 1 Fiscal Analyst

•Written tutorials were provided.

•Feedback -“We are comfortable with scanning and Drop Box.”-“I don’t have time to look over the tutorials.”-“If I have a question, I can’t ask a tutorial.”-“I think the digital archive in Drop Box is redundant; we can already do that in Buy Ways.”

CHANGES IN ITERATION 2:

•Written tutorials were replaced with a training sessions.

•For the use of drop box and creating and using adobe digital signature.

ITERATION 2: FEEDBACK

- The added level of organization within Drop Box might be useful.

- Still feel like archiving within Drop Box is redundant

- Explored the acceptability of video tutorials as opposed to written tutorials.

CHANGES IN ITERATION 3:

Test department – Clemson Recreation(2 Buyers, 1 Approver, 1 Fiscal Analyst)

• Video tutorials created and tested

• Inventory maintenance using excel sheet will be tested on other inefficient departments.

• Added in the Contracted Vendors spreadsheet, to be maintained by the Fiscal Analysts

ITERATION 3: FEEDBACK

•Gathered “Initial Impression” feedback from Student Housing.

•The Video Tutorials are a significant improvement over the written ones.

•The inventory sheet captures all of the relevant information.

•A PDF splitter would be great!

COST CONSIDERATIONS:•Only time costs associated with implementation:

▫Training is done via videos.▫All departments have access to scanners.▫No new personnel hired.▫1 hour per employee to download software, watch

tutorials, and make templates.▫30 minutes per month to update and maintain

contracted vendors.▫2 minutes per purchase to update inventory.

•Saves by eliminating paper copies, freeing up storage space, and minimizing payment time (allows for discounts).

ITERATION 4: FINAL PRODUCT

A DVD THAT IS TO BE SUBMITTED TO THE SABO WILL CONTAIN

•Video tutorials explaining drop box and adobe digital signature creation

•Digital(pdf) tutorials explaining drop box and adobe digital signature creation

• Inventory maintenance using excel spreadsheet.• Contracted Vendors spreadsheet• Tutorials emphasizing the use of buy ways.• Readme- file

New Tools and Procedural Changes•Procedural Changes are mandatory, but

new tools are optional; they should help the users adapt to the procedural changes.

•Procedural changes:▫No more paper copying.▫No more use of inter-office mail.▫Digital approving.▫Invoices sent to fiscal analyst first.

DropBox and Adobe Reader Signatures•Digital Tutorials…

QUANTITATIVE RESULTS:

Metric Ideal Value

Marginal Value Fike Housing Units Need

No.Metric

No.% of invoices that stay with one

stakeholder for longer than 48 hours <10 <50 2 25 % 1, 2, 3, 5 1

Satisfaction with processing speed >9 >7 9 9 Subj. (1 to 10) 1 2Time between stakeholders receiving

invoices <1 <3 <1 <1 Days 1, 3 3Perceived likelihood of an invoice not

being lost >9 >8 10 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 2, 4 4Satisfaction with # of contacts in the

Budget Head hierarchy 10 10 9 9 Subj. (1 to 10) 6 5

Time to locate current invoice <1 <2 <1 <1 Hours 6 6Satisfaction with general information

about the process (Budget Heads) >9 >8 10 8 Subj. (1 to 10) 7 7

Satisfaction with general information about the process (Buyers) >9 >8 9 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 8 8

Satisfaction with the amount of feedback 10 10 10 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 9, 10 9

Notified when an invoice has arrived at a stakeholder Yes No No No Yes/No 10 10

% of times vendors are compared >50% >30% 50 100 % 11, 20 11Perceived Likelihood that state

contracts will be adhered to 10 >9 9 9 Subj. (1 to 10) 12, 18 12

Metric Ideal Value

Marginal Value Fike Housing Units Need

No.Metric

No.Perceived Likelihood that purchases

will be made with a contracted vendor, where a contracted vendor is the best

option>9 >8 9 9 Subj. (1 to 10) 13, 18 13

Perceived ease of processing purchases not made through BuyWays 10 10 10 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 14 14

Satisfaction with # of vendors available through BuyWays >9 >8 5 7 Subj. (1 to 10) 15 15

Perceived ease of purchasing through state contracted vendors 10 >9 9 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 16 16

Satisfaction with information about the Budget Head hierarchy 10 10 10 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 17, 30 17

% of stakeholders who know about the Budget Head hierarchy 100 100 100 100 % 17, 30 18

% of redundant purchases (purchases made where that item already exists in

inventory)<5 <10 2 8 % 19 19

Perceived ease of processing large purchases >9 >7 8 8 Subj. (1 to 10) 21 20

% of vendors that are found within BuyWays >90 >80 30 75 % 22, 27 21

Perceived ability to make necessary purchases >9 >8 10 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 23 22

Perceived ability to handle purchase load 10 10 10 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 24 23

Perceived flexibility of the system to changes >9 >7 N/A N/A Subj. (1 to 10) 25 24

MetricIdeal Value

Marginal Value

Fike Housing Units Need No.Metric

No.Perceived level of organization and

convenience >9 >8 8 9 Subj. (1 to 10) 26 25

% of purchases made through BuyWays >75 >50 30 40 % 27, 34 26

Perceived ease of making purchases through BuyWays >9 >7 6 7 Subj. (1 to 10) 27, 34 27

% of time to make a purchase through BuyWays, compared to other methods <50 <100 150 100 % 27, 34 28

Perceived ease of updating Budget Head hierarcy (manual) >9 >7 2 1 Subj. (1 to 10) 28 29

Perceived ease of updating Budget Head hierarcy (Buyways) >9 >7 2 1 Subj. (1 to 10) 28 30

How well informed are stakeholders of changes in the hierarchy >9 >7 9 9 Subj. (1 to 10) 29 31

Time to acquire an archived invoice (in retention) <2 <2 2 2 Days 31 32

Time to acquire an archived invoice (in house storage) <3 <10 <1 <1 Minutes 31 33

% of records that are stored digitally 100 >75 100 100 % 32 34

Preferrability of digital storage to paper storage >9 >7 10 10 Subj. (1 to 10) 32 35

% of invoices that are purely digital >75 >50 100 100 % 32, 33, 36 36

Metric Ideal Value

Marginal Value Fike Housing Units Need

No.Metric

No.

% of invoices that are sent through inter-office mail <25 <50 0 0 % 33 37

# of copies of each invoice made 0 <1 0 0 # 35 38

# of people who handle invoices that are not required to 0 <2 0 0 # 37 39

Time of record retention (in house) 2 2 1 3 Years 38 40

Time of record retention (in archives) 7 7 7 7 Years 38 41

$ per year for maintainance costs <300 <500 0 0 $ 39, 41 42

Time to implement <50 <2001

hour/employee

1 hour/emplo

yeeHours 40 43

Time to maintain 0 <510

minutes/week

10 minutes/we

ekHours/month 41 44

SUMMARY:

•Met our ideal values on 32 metrics (at least with one of the two departments tested)▫This indicates that we either did really good… or

we weren’t aggressive enough with our targets.•Did not meet our marginal values on 9 metrics.

▫Mostly due to limits to changing BuyWays.•Subjectively, the clients seemed very happy

with the concepts.▫The additional tools were relatively simple.▫They agreed with the positive aspects of the

solution (e.g. eliminating paper usage)

CONCLUSION:

•Overall, was a successful project.•Clients seem very happy with the solution.•Users (customers) didn’t seem adamantly

against any aspect of the concept.

THANKS FOR YOUR ATTENTION