When we perform a process audit, or a Process and Enterprise Maturity Model (PEMM) analysis on Purdue University’s travel expense reimbursement system Concur, we can see that the process is fairly mature and capable of delivering a high performance output over time. Concur’s infrastructure, one of its process enablers, is strong. In reference to its P-4 information systems, Concur is a well-known publicly traded travel expense software company that possesses an IT system with a modular architecture that adheres to industry standards for inter-enterprise communication. In terms of human resource systems, Purdue’s travel expense reporting system falls slightly short, at a P-2 level. The process design drives role definitions, job descriptions, and competency profiles; and job training is based on process documentation, but there is no hiring, development, reward, or recognition system to reinforce the importance of intra and inter-enterprise collaboration, personal learning, and organizational change. This can be seen through its Concur training tutorial, which very few users actually go through, and should be shortened and mandatory for a few key users to promote collaboration and organizational change.

In terms of metrics, Purdue’s travel expense management system falls at a P-1 level, where the process has some basic cost and quality metrics. Purdue staff use the process’s metrics to track its performance, identify root causes of faulty performance, and drive functional improvements. A specific example can be seen when Purdue dropped Form 17 and Form 25, thereby eliminating the need for travel pre-approval. In addition, through the Concur Travel System TripIt, a physical signature is no longer required, and non-hotel receipts for expenses for under $75 is also deemed unnecessary.

When determining the maturity of the enterprise, we first look at the leadership involved in Purdue’s travel expense reporting and management. Purdue’s Concur Travel and Expense lands at an E-2 level in terms of leadership, where in reference to awareness, at least one executive deeply understands the business process concept and how the enterprise can use it to improve performance, as well as what is involved in implementing it. We identified this individual as Gayle Stetler, Manager of Accounts Payable at Purdue University. Gayle has taken leadership of, and responsibility for the alignment of the process program. She has also stretched performance goals in customer terms and is prepared to commit resources, make changes (albeit slow ones), and remove roadblocks in order to achieve those goals. We have seen many of these efforts in the different presentations, showcases, and process maps that outline changes, including removing non value added activities to streamline Purdue’s travel reimbursement process. Speaking with the Purdue travel expense reporting management, we also see that the team is passionate about the need to change, by reducing the amount of forms needed, removing approvals and pre-approvals, and automating the system through the implementation of a travel credit card, among other improvements.

As the process is still fairly new, customers (traveler or delegate) and management (everyone else) have yet to define a culture. Currently, the overall maturity of enterprise culture barely passes the E-1. The implementation of the new system was intended to make things not only more efficient, but easier for the traveler. However, communication is a major issue throughout the process. Not necessarily within the system, but specificity of the system. While the process owner attempts to resolve customer issues to the third party (Altour), customers fail to productively critique the new process. This creates havoc, confusion and excess stress compiled with the limited understanding of the system. While information on the new system is available, communicating where to find that information (especially detailed) to the customer is nil.

As all involved understand the need for the new system, none are experts, not even the process owner. Traveler training is limited and experience with the system often infrequent. Should faculty been important enough to have a delegate, the delegate receives the most training with the system. While most issues are in understanding the third party system, CONCUR, Purdue’s poor SAP integration has left too congestion. This being the reigned process for travel, some confusion is expected, but even “upper level” expertise fails at E-2. The third party expertise maintains an E-3 on the PEMM on overall Enterprise, but Purdue’s methodology barely enters E-1.

A process model is non-existent and out dated value stream maps (VSM) poorly represent the complexity of the process. While reviewing the proposed VSM in comparison with the previous (2011), one can see the intended direction of redesign and the process model barely enters E-2. The change is also new to the process owner and accountability is yellow across the board. As there is a formal travel office and travelers, or delegates, are expected to perform the majority of functions, integration ends at the E-1 level in the audit.