Corcentric Order-to-Cash (O2C) Solutions vs. Oracle Textura Payment Management

They are at the top of our list to implement for our subs.

Incentivized

• AIA Billing
• ACH Payments
• SOV Management
• Communications
• User Management
• Compliance Holds

Incentivized

• Signatory workflow - Logging into the signatory and notary in the same process. There isn't as much separation as there could be.
• We could use a place to put in our job number. Running reports to ensure we billed everything in our system matches what's in Textura isn't easy because there are different job names.
• If our authorized signer inadvertently fails to execute the application and the GC closes the draw period, it appears as though the pay application was never submitted. From what I can see, there is no clear audit trail reflecting that it had been prepared or pending signature prior to the draw closing.

Incentivized

Although there are minor improvements to be made, Oracle Textura Payment Management is far and away the easiest payment solution out there for any invoicing procedure that requires monthly draws.

Incentivized

Currently, we use Textura if our GC requires it. If we implement Textura for OUR subs, it will be b/c we are familiar with the product and see how it works for our GC's.

Incentivized

• Oracle Textura Payment Management has dramatically improved our AR process (when the GC uses it). We wish that every job used it so we wouldn't have to deal with the dozens of builder-specific invoicing processes each month. Before Oracle Textura Payment Management, each builder had specific process we had to follow in order to get paid. After GCs started to use it, we have been able to consolidate multiple clients and jobs into a single easy-to-learn and easy-to-teach process that allows us to submit invoices easily and track when we are going to get paid.

Incentivized