Featured presenter:<\/strong> Senior Director of Finance Transformation at Company A, a U.S. industrial products distributor owned by a global parent company. He was joined by a process owner for Cash Application in Company A\u2019s GBS organization, one of his internal customers.<\/p>\nCompany A frames its role as the \u201cSAP process owner\u201d rather than a global process owner, because within its global parent company, \u201cglobal\u201d means across geographies and multiple ERPs. Company A runs a single SAP instance across its U.S. and Canada business, and its process owners have been full-time roles since the 2010 SAP go-live.<\/p>\n
Nine live attendee polls covered the GPO role overview, decision rights and obstacles, and continuous improvement.<\/p>\n
Note that this document is a summary. Peeriosity-100 members have full visibility to company names, presenters, Peercast attendees, and a recording of the Peercast discussion.<\/p>\n
Key Themes<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- GPO models are still uneven across companies.<\/strong> Half of poll respondents have formal GPOs across most end-to-end processes; the rest have GPOs for only some processes, informal or part-time roles, or none yet. No one described their model as mature with clear decision rights. Half said the GPO role is part-time alongside another job, and a third report GPOs into GBS leadership.<\/li>\n
- End-to-end matters more than \u201cglobal.\u201d<\/strong> The facilitator noted that many GPOs cover a single region; the defining feature is end-to-end scope (purchase to pay, not just AP). Company A makes the same distinction, calling its roles SAP process owners while the parent company builds a separate global GPO model across geographies and ERPs.<\/li>\n
- Influence over authority.<\/strong> Two thirds of respondents say GPOs own process design and global standards, but only 17% say they own policy or budget, and a third say GPOs rely mostly on influence. Matching that, \u201cinfluencing without authority\u201d was the top-rated GPO skill (83%), ahead of deep process and technical expertise (67%) and change management (50%).<\/li>\n
- Change management is a core partner.<\/strong> Company A process owners know when to pull in a dedicated change management team for training and impact planning. That team began with 18 people at the 2010 SAP go-live, now numbers about 5 to 6, and also led the Microsoft-to-Google move after the parent company acquisition.<\/li>\n
- Local practices and capacity are the main obstacles.<\/strong> Regional or business unit leaders protecting local practices and competing business priorities tied as the top barriers (67% each), followed by lack of visible executive sponsorship (33%). Company A sees local practice less as resistance than as the challenge of getting consistency at scale.<\/li>\n
- Continuous improvement and measurement are immature.<\/strong> Half of respondents have not yet found an effective mechanism to sustain continuous improvement, and half have no formal measure of GPO effectiveness. Where measurement exists, improvement initiatives delivered (50%) leads process KPIs, standardization rates and stakeholder satisfaction (25% each); no one measures GPOs on cost savings.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n
Poll Summary Insights<\/strong><\/p>\nTaken together, the polls describe GPOs who are trusted to design processes but lack the levers, time and measures to make change stick.<\/p>\n
Role Overview<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- No one considers their model mature.<\/strong> Even the 50% with formal GPOs across most end-to-end processes stopped short of claiming clear decision rights and accountability.<\/li>\n
- Part-time is the norm.<\/strong> 50% say the GPO role sits alongside another job, versus 33% full-time. This is the firefighting trap two attendees described later in the call.<\/li>\n
- Team size shows a wide maturity gap.<\/strong> 33% have one dedicated person per process, while 17% (including Company A) have a team of 5 or more.<\/li>\n
- GPOs sit in GBS or the function, not the business.<\/strong> 33% report to GBS leadership and 17% to a functional leader; no one reports into the business or uses matrix reporting.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Decision Rights, Skills and Obstacles<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Authority stops at design.<\/strong> 67% of GPOs own process design and standards, but only 17% own policy or budget, the levers that enforce adoption. A third rely mostly on influence.<\/li>\n
- Influence is the skill that matters most.<\/strong> Influencing without authority (83%) outranked deep process expertise (67%) and change management (50%). Executive presence drew only 17%.<\/li>\n
- Obstacles are about attention and local habit, not turf.<\/strong> Local practices and competing priorities tied at 67%. No one cited functional leaders seeing GPOs as encroaching, or a lack of data to make the case.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Panelist Company Snapshots<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n| <\/th>\n | Company A<\/strong><\/th>\nPoll respondents<\/strong><\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n\n\nBusiness context<\/strong><\/td>\n| Subsidiary of a global parent company; about 1M ship-to customer locations, 11M deliveries and 20M ERP transactions a year, 18,000 associates, 800+ branches; 500+ acquisitions since 1982<\/td>\n | Mixed industries<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nGPO model<\/strong><\/td>\n| Full-time SAP process owners since the 2010 SAP go-live; Parent company now forming separate global GPOs<\/td>\n | 50% formal GPOs across most end-to-end processes; 17% for some processes; 17% informal or part-time; 17% none yet<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nFull-time or part-time<\/strong><\/td>\n| Full-time<\/td>\n | 33% full-time; 50% part-time alongside another role; 17% no GPOs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTeam size per process<\/strong><\/td>\n| A lead plus an analyst per domain; 8 to 10 people for order management<\/td>\n | 33% one dedicated person; 17% a team of 5 or more<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nReporting line<\/strong><\/td>\n| Finance operations, under the Senior Director of Finance Transformation<\/td>\n | 33% GBS leadership; 17% functional leader (CFO or CHRO); 17% no GPOs<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nScope<\/strong><\/td>\n| Order to cash, procure to pay, fixed assets, general ledger, master data; separate supply chain owners for gases and hard goods<\/td>\n | Not polled<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nSystems<\/strong><\/td>\n| One SAP instance for Company A U.S. and Canada (the parent company has about 3 globally); goal is vanilla with necessary customization<\/td>\n | Not polled<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nDecision rights<\/strong><\/td>\n| Voice of the business to IT; execute test scripts and hold sign-off before any go-live<\/td>\n | 67% process design and standards; 33% KPIs, local exceptions, or influence only; 17% policy or budget<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nTop obstacle<\/strong><\/td>\n| Getting consistency across local practices at scale<\/td>\n | 67% local practices; 67% competing priorities; 33% weak executive sponsorship<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n | \nAI use<\/strong><\/td>\n| Not yet in use; testing seen as a likely first area<\/td>\n | 25% cite GPO-led automation and AI as an effective improvement mechanism<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n Notable Takeaways<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- Know who your customer is.<\/strong> Company A process owners serve two internal customers: the Company A divisions and the GBS. The presenter said anyone on his team could name their customer immediately, and advised companies setting up the function to build it around the voice of the customer.<\/li>\n
- The role can sell itself.<\/strong> At Company A the SAP process owner was never a hard sell. With 800+ branches, the business needed one informed voice back to IT, so the role followed naturally from the SAP rollout and acquisition integration.<\/li>\n
- Standardize the system, not the sales approach.<\/strong> Acquired businesses keep local autonomy in serving customers, but order execution and system use follow common SAP standards.<\/li>\n
- Bring the need, then challenge it together.<\/strong> The Company A GBS process owner described weekly sessions where GBS brings business needs and the process owners test whether an SAP-standard option exists before agreeing to custom work.<\/li>\n
- A sponsor clears the path.<\/strong> The presenter sees his own role as sponsor: allocating resources and funding outside help when a requirement needs it.<\/li>\n
- Dedicated GPOs free time for transformation.<\/strong> Two attendees both said transformation at scale is very hard without GPOs who can step back from daily firefighting. Company A still balances production support against project delivery.<\/li>\n
- GPO expertise often already exists, just not by title.<\/strong> The presenter suggested that companies without formal GPOs probably have about 80% of that process knowledge sitting in IT today.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Audience Q&A Highlights<\/strong><\/p>\n\n- How does governance work between GBS, SAP process owners and IT?<\/strong> It runs on three tracks. IT leads code-promotion governance and controls. IT and Company A corporate jointly govern budget and project prioritization. GBS is now actively involved in governing enhancement and efficiency projects.<\/li>\n
- How do GBS GPOs interact with the SAP process owners?<\/strong> They are different people with different roles. Company A GBS GPOs focus on process definition and where activities sit; SAP process owners sit between the business and IT on system and process design. The Company A GBS process owner meets the presenter\u2019s team weekly to translate business needs into SAP solutions without excess customization.<\/li>\n
- Is GBS part of finance? (chat)<\/strong> Largely yes. GBS is a new organization for Company A (about 3 years) and its parent company (about 5 to 6 years), and Company A plans to add GPOs within it for finance and other areas.<\/li>\n
- One SAP instance, and vanilla or custom?<\/strong> One instance for Company A, about 3 across the parent company. The vision is vanilla, but Company A\u2019s unique business required some custom design, and process owners weigh the trade-offs of each change.<\/li>\n
- Are SAP process owners involved in AI decisions?<\/strong> Not yet; it is early days and Company A does not use AI in delivery today. Automated test script execution is a likely first use as tools mature.<\/li>\n
- Are GPOs a game changer or a nice-to-have?<\/strong> The presenter said Company A could not live without them. One attendee said scope and authority differ by company and maturity, but transformation at scale is very hard without them. Another attendee, a former R2R GPO now in a global delivery role, valued the dedicated focus but said lack of executive sponsorship, upstream issues, and misaligned priorities across procurement and supply chain made the GPO role a struggle.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
<\/span> | | | | | | | | | | | | |