SAP goods receipt process conflicts

1. Validation Failures in Invoice Processing Scenario: An invoice fails validation due to discrepancies in the 3-way match (Purchase Order (PO), Goods Receipt (GR), and Invoice). Example: The invoice amount exceeds the PO limit by 15%, but the vendor claims a contract amendment was agreed upon. This requires manual intervention, which could delay payments. A duplicate invoice number was detected in the system, blocking the invoice for payment despite being legitimate. 2. Approval Workflow Delays Scenario: Approval is needed but is delayed due to missing approvers or conflicting business rules. Example: A high-value invoice is flagged for approval, but the manager is on extended leave, delaying the payment and incurring late fees. Workflow routing errors cause the invoice to be forwarded to the wrong approver, resulting in rework. 3. Automated vs. Manual Payments Scenario: Disagreements arise over whether payments should be automated or processed manually for certain vendors. Example: An automated payment was processed for a vendor flagged for manual payment due to prior reconciliation issues, leading to overpayment. Manual payment resulted in missing a critical early payment discount. 4. Discrepancy Resolution Issues Scenario: Discrepancies identified during validation or payment processing are not resolved in time, leading to blocked invoices. Example: A vendor disputes the withholding of tax on an invoice, requiring legal consultation to resolve before the payment can proceed. A GR/IR mismatch due to incomplete goods receipt processing holds up the entire invoice approval process. 5. Lack of Reconciliation and Reporting Scenario: Delayed or inaccurate reconciliation leads to accounting discrepancies or audit findings. Example: Payments were posted to the wrong account due to reconciliation errors, causing confusion in month-end financial reporting. Failure to track discrepancies and their resolutions leads to repeat issues with the same vendor. 6. Vendor Disputes Scenario: Vendors contest blocked or delayed payments, leading to strained relationships. Example: A vendor threatens legal action over delayed payments due to SAP system configuration errors in tax calculations. A payment was blocked because the vendor provided incomplete bank details, but they argue the company has the correct information on file. Key Takeaways Ensuring robust validation rules and workflows within SAP can prevent many of these scenarios. Automated reconciliation tools, timely communication with vendors, and exception handling mechanisms are critical for smooth AP operations. Stakeholders must balance system automation and manual oversight to address exceptions without jeopardizing efficiency.

Impact on SoD Conflicts: Automated Tasks with RPA and AI Automating steps in a process cycle using RPA bots or AI can significantly change how Segregation of Duties conflicts are managed. Below is an analysis of how these conflicts are impacted in the procure-to-pay processes, when purchase order maintenance is automated. Example P2P SoD Conflicts: - Purchase Requisition - Purchase Order: Medium risk - Purchase Order - Goods Receipt to PO: High risk - Goods Receipt to PO - Supplier Invoice: High risk - Purchase Order - Supplier Invoice: High risk 1. Purchase Requisition - Purchase Order (Medium Risk). When an RPA bot automates the creation of POs based on approved Purchase Requisitions, it reduces the human element, minimizing the risk of unauthorized PO creation or manipulation. 2. Purchase Order - Goods Receipt to PO (High Risk). Despite automation, the risk here remains high. While bots handle the creation of POs, there’s still the potential for someone to manipulate Goods Receipts to match fraudulent or incorrect POs. The bot doesn’t directly address this vulnerability, so additional safeguards, such as three-way matching (PO, Goods Receipt, and Invoice), should be implemented to mitigate risk. 3. Goods Receipt to PO - Supplier Invoice (High Risk). Automation of PO creation doesn’t solve the issue of potential manipulation of Goods Receipts or invoices. Fraudulent activity, such as false goods receipts or supplier invoices, can still occur, so this conflict remains high risk. Strengthening controls around the verification and approval of invoices is necessary to address this. 4. Purchase Order - Supplier Invoice (High Risk). The risk remains high as automating PO creation doesn’t prevent fraudulent invoices from being matched with legitimate POs. Independent verification steps and thorough invoice reviews are needed to mitigate this risk. New SoD risks 1. Purchase Requisition - Goods Receipt: Because of the automation of Purchase Order (PO) creation by RPA or AI, the risk exists that a user could exploit the procurement cycle. For example, with POs automatically generated based on requisitions, a user could create a false Purchase Requisition and later confirm the receipt of goods that were never delivered. The automation of POs bypasses manual verification at this stage, potentially allowing the same person to control both the initiation (Purchase Requisition) and receipt stages. 2. Purchase Requisition - Supplier Invoice: Because PO maintenance is automated, there’s a SoD risk when the same user is responsible for both creating the Purchase Requisition and posting supplier invoices. The automated generation of POs removes manual checks, allowing a user to initiate a Purchase Requisition and later post a fraudulent invoice. It is recommended, once the bot / AI is implemented, to conduct a new SoD risk assessment to ensure that risk levels accurately reflect the automated process. #accenture #accenturesecurity #sap #sapsecurity