Coupa’s cloud-native Business Spend Management
(BSM) platform provides end-to-end processes
that helps drive collaboration
across for every business leader from supply chain, procurement,
finance, treasury, compliance, and IT and supply chain
leaders to help their companies to get the visibility and control they need to
spend smarter, mitigate risk, and improve
resilience. A
unified platform approach frees up IT from complex integrations to help
leaders deliver on these goals.
$549
per year
GTreasury
Score 8.4 out of 10
N/A
GTreasury offers their treasury management system for funds and transfer management, liquidity tracking, customizable accounting rules with ERP integration, and other liquidity management features.
Suitable: Simple indirect procurement. Low cost; short cycle implementation. Less Suitable: Complex procurement scenario requiring serious vendor collaboration. End-to-end integration. Direct Material Procurement, especially when planning, quality inspection, and other miscellaneous activities are involved, requires handling various special statuses and updates to meet industry- or country-specific requirements.
It is well-suited for providing information about what cash is available and its future outlook of it. It helped us to link the multiple bank accounts that we have globally into one consolidated location. We were then able to ensure that we had the cash required to meet the various business needs that we have.
Coupa is easy to use, however, we had to teach our end users about procurement. They are not used to conducting an RFP, onboarding a supplier, or preparing a PO. This is the change management that our employees had to be prepared to understand. The Shelby Group helped us with the implementation.
The hardest part was the integration between NetSuite and Coupa. We wanted to have a dynamic tight integration between the two solutions. If we adjusted the chart of accounts or added a new supplier we wanted it to be able to done in both systems and be available immediately in both systems. We used a partner called SuiteSkies to accomplish this dynamic integration.
We’ve been able to manage the implementation and maintenance with a very lean IT group.
Support Team - A little slow in responding. I think the tool is so configurable that they struggle with figuring out what is causing certain issues that are being submitted on the portal.
I'd love for the Sourcing Module to be able to support larger events. There seems to be a limit on the number of lines each event can support and as a growing retailer, our store count dictates we have room to grow and that each store is represented in the bid process.
Would like to see the ability to issue multiple POs for a single item to multiple locations. The tool may do this but I know I can't and it may be due to how we interface with our ERP.
[In my opinion, the] reporting functions are not user-friendly and [are] very confusing.
[I also believe that the] financial accounting module is also not user-friendly.
Operator security - [In my opinion,] the admin is confusing to set up new groups. Some languages in there were either no longer valid or changed. [Also, I believe that you] cannot disable users unless you move them to disable group. [I feel like it's] a bit weird.
Customer service support - [I feel it has] gotten better but [I, personally,] hope to see more improvement and timely responses.
[I believe] the location of certain functions is confusing as well. [In my experience,] I usually have to go to [the] search bar to search for what I am looking for.
FBAR - [I feel this is] also a bit confusing and hard to find. [In my case,] I had to ask where it is located, and [it was] definitely not where I would have expected it to [be]. I would assume it would be under reporting, but it was under [the] library and then maintenance or something.
[I feel] it's too hard to use and navigate around [and] very difficult to manage/administer. We may keep it because [I feel] we [have] already gone through the pain point and don't want to risk going through that again. Unfortunately, if we keep it, [I believe] it's not because we love it.
-Could be easy or hard to use depending on corporate policies and compliance. At times, errors and cryptical message associated with them could drive users mad.
Good overall usability for what we have needed. We have not delved into any recent upgrades in modules, so there could be better functionality within the system today that we are not currently leveraging. We plan on doing a refresh in 2022 to see where we might be able to take advantage of the recent offerings within the modules we use today.
-Support is generally speaking OK (not great). The user community is quite active, and the response time is acceptable. I would certainly hope there's more user-generated content (like in SAP, Oracle, and Linux, etc.), but I suppose Coupa is still not large enough, and the incentives are not yet there.
Weekly meetings and updates a plus Set realistic timeline expectations Have a good project manager Make sure everyone is following the same time line and dependencies list Keep track of a future state or out of scope list You may need to change the scope and do a project request form change, that's OK if you determine a key function has been missed Don't be afraid to extend the timeline to make sure through testing has been done prior to going live Document set up decisions, how reports and worksheets work, and why certain user codes are or are not in the positioning reports.
Concur was a lot easier and more user friendly for employees doing expense reports on their phone. That is not the case with Coupa. You must use your laptop to do expenses and our managers don't always have enough time to do that while out in the field working. This has caused some issues.
Simple and far more user-friendly than most other TMS applications I have used in the past. Very strong core TMS foundation and functionality. Addressing some of the known issues and shortfalls would go a long way in taking a much bigger market share from some of the other main players in the TMS space. GTreasury was also very competitive on price and cost-effective.
Very positive ROI allowing us to take our daily cash target down to 1% of total admitted Assts. Prior to GTreasury we were running close to 20%.
Reduced bank service cost initially by $300,000+ and annually a minimum of $50,000.
Allowed us to maintain and streamline Treasury Staff FTE level, with the ability to train other areas for self service payment research, so the Treasury Analyst can focus on value added analysis tasks.
