Fall 2024 Procure to Pay Project Update

Posted in Procure-to-Pay

Update – Fall 2024 in Review
August 2024 – July 2025, OCFO & BDOG

Overview

The Office of the Chief Financial Officer (OCFO) is in the process of developing a 5-year strategic plan to clarify the role of the office and set priorities. To gather input, we have surveyed stakeholders across the university on OCFO Functions. Procurement has been identified as a critical area for improvement by campus partners. The “Procure-to-Pay” (P2P) process is complex and multifaceted at GU, so to understand where improvements are needed, we need a deeper understanding of current practices. To do this, we will be reviewing every aspect of our current procurement and payables practices—from processes and workflows to the tools we use and how our teams are structured.

Fall 2024 was for “listening and learning” to document the Current State of GU Procure-to-Pay and the best practices from the industry. We now move into the Spring and Summer of 2025 focused on assessment and analysis of this information to build intentional recommendations for next steps.

5 Key Areas of Review & Emerging Themes

Structure

  • How is GU Structured to provide services?
  • Where have we landed since the Main Campus and University Services Financial Reorganization?
  • How are peer institutions structured for Procure-to-Pay?

Emerging Themes and Observations

  • GU: Stakeholders shared insights on the effectiveness of P2P support structures, highlighting both areas where needs are being met and opportunities for improvement. Feedback included positive relationships with Procurement Analysts (PAs) and Contract Managers, as well as discussions on the impact of the previous financial reorganization for Main Campus and University Services.
  • Benchmarking: Models vary between Decentralized, Centralized, and Center-Led, but university models align with financial policy, process, customer service, and technology workflows

Policies

  • What are our policies? What is being enforced and what is not?
  • Where do policies make sense or need modification?

Emerging Themes and Observations

  • GU: Signature Authority is limited, Contract Policy pushes to greater contract use decreasing self-service, large number of approvers, P-Card Thresholds are low and often need increases
  • Benchmarking: Thresholds are being evaluated and risk tolerance is large factor for policy decisions

Processes

  • Where do process and policy align?
  • Where are there opportunities to streamline?
  • Additional consideration with process for the “soft side” and “Culture” elements involved

Emerging Themes and Observations

  • GU: Turn around times are too long (REQ to Invoice inclusive), communication pathways are unclear, GMS is not exhaustive so process often overlaps technologies, supplier relationships are often managed by stakeholders, GU reputation is a constant consideration from all parties
  • Benchmarking: Budget management impacts process considerations, processing times are considered too slow from stakeholders, alignment of stakeholder education and engagement with the process is critical (one institution/team)

Tools & Technology

  • Where are our needs met and not met?
  • What are our requirements?
  • Who uses what and why?

Emerging Themes and Observations

  • GU: System access is inconsistent or limited, AppZen needs more transparency, GMS cannot meet all requirements and technology is layered, FreshService is a newer ticketing system so adjustments are on-going, Contract Lifecycle Management Tool considerations and historical context
  • Benchmarking: GU is an early AI adopter in P2P, increased use of self-service, ticketing systems are best practice, layered systems (no one tool for everything)

Other Noteable Highlights

  • What other “P2P” trends exist?
  • Is there something out of scope to flag for future review?

Emerging Themes and Observations

  • GU: Training and Job Aids need review, stakeholders want to learn and engage with process correctly
  • Benchmarking: Many Institutions are doing similar reviews (or one part of process review)

Achievements

  • 170+ Stakeholders Interviewed from Main Campus, University Services, Georgetown University Medical Center (GUMC), and Georgetown University Law Center (GULC)
  • 20 Institutions in the Benchmarking Review including some members of COFHE (Consortium for Financing Higher Education Schools), neighboring institutions in Washington D.C., and other identified peer institutions
  • 10 Institutions Interviewed (many met with more than once), over 30% for generalizable results in the consultative process

Timeline for 2025

End of January

Continued Benchmarking and Stakeholder Feedback Sessions

January – June

Assessment, Analysis, and Recommendations

*Project slated to close mid-July 2025