By Joel Sauve, Vice President of Audit and Solutions Operations
September is a great time to be in San Diego, California and even better when you’re with friends and new connections at the Shared Services & Outsourcing Network’s 20th Annual SSOW Autumn event.
As proud sponsors, Cotiviti had the honor of hosting Olympic Gold Medalist Kristi Yamaguchi for a meet and greet at our booth following her keynote presentation on day three. We met with finance, procurement, and global services (GBS) leaders at the event and were fortunate to hold multiple roundtable sessions with enterprise leaders on moving from reactive financial recovery to proactive error prevention across the procure-to-pay lifecycle.
The following is a summary of attendee responses and our key takeaways from the incredible conversations we had at our roundtable sessions on the topic of Real-time error detection in practice: Lessons, challenges, and strategies.
*All quotes are anonymized and paraphrased responses from Cotiviti’s SSOW leadership roundtable sessions.
Q: What are the most expensive financial errors organizations face today?
Fraud, security, late payments, and poor master data management were all answers given by various financial, procurement, and GBS leaders, but the consensus answer that stood out was:
“Organizations spend so much time addressing operational issues that they have less time to focus on commercial terms, negotiations, and value creation.”
We also heard that these companies rely on multiple systems that don’t communicate effectively with each other and that data quality issues are widespread.
Q: Do you have fail-safes built into your processes?
Several roundtable attendees have dedicated risk management teams embedded within the procure-to-pay process, and a common challenge is balancing velocity and compliance, with speed being a critical business metric. Several group members also shared that:
“While leadership is enthusiastic about process transformation and automation initiatives, day-to-day operations are often more resistant to change.”
It was noted that compliance requirements often slow processes, creating tension between efficiency and control.
Q: Which team would need to change its behavior the most to accelerate transformation?
Finance, legal, data, and technology teams each emerged as potential barriers. Finance leaders often require a strong ROI case and proof of concept, while legal teams can slow decisions through their ownership of controls, policies, and risk management.
“Technology is only as effective as the data feeding it.”
Participants also noted that incomplete spend data and inconsistent definitions create reporting and governance challenges that can stall transformation across the company.
Q: If you went to your CFO, what would they need to see to prove prevention is the right investment?
The answer was direct: clear P&L impact, measurable hard-dollar savings, improved forecasting accuracy, and reduced spend. Leaders want demonstrated business outcomes, not theoretical benefits.
“The investment case must connect prevention to measurable financial results.”
The discussion also surfaced an adoption gap around AI. Executives see its potential to solve process challenges, while employees may resist it out of concern that automation could replace their jobs.
Q: How do you bridge the gap between recovery and prevention?
The group emphasized the importance of moving beyond repeated recovery efforts to understand why errors occur in the first place. That means examining the process, data, and decisions that allow the same issues to continue.
“Focus on identifying and addressing the root cause rather than continually reacting to symptoms.”
Closing the gap requires using recovery insights to strengthen upstream controls so fewer errors reach the point where teams must chase and recover value after the fact.
Q: What common challenges do you face?
Non-PO purchases remain difficult to manage, particularly when payments are made against contracts rather than purchase orders. Without a PO, matching invoices to the correct source documentation becomes more complex.
“Vendors frequently submit invoices with missing or incorrect PO numbers.”
Some companies automatically reject invoices when a required PO is not detected, adding a control earlier in the process rather than relying on teams to resolve the issue after payment.
Q: What processes or programs do you have in place to identify errors?
Dedicated personnel and statement of reconciliation remain common controls for finding and resolving discrepancies. Even so, most attendees described their current processes as highly manual.
“Teams often focus on only a portion of invoice processing activities, limiting overall visibility.”
The challenge is not always a significant delay. It is the incomplete view created when controls cover individual steps without connecting activity across the full procure-to-pay process.
Q: If your organization shifted from recovery to prevention, who would resist the change and what barriers would you face?
Resistance to change was described as a major obstacle, from employees who prefer established processes to GBS and finance leaders likely to push back on transformation. Many companies are also experiencing fatigue from the volume of change already underway.
“That’s the way we’ve always done it.”
Concern that AI could replace jobs adds another layer of resistance, making change management and clear communication as important as the technology itself.
Q: How does data quality impact your operations?
Suppliers frequently provide inaccurate or incomplete data, while customer and supplier information often comes from multiple systems and sources. The result is inconsistency that complicates both operations and governance.
“Organizations struggle to pause ongoing business operations long enough to address underlying data quality issues.”
That tension leaves teams managing the symptoms of poor data while the root causes continue to create exceptions, rework, and limited visibility.
Q: What are the biggest hurdles to implementing change?
Time, resources, and prioritization were repeated concerns. Many companies operate in a constant state of urgency, making it difficult for teams to step back from immediate problems and invest in long-term improvements.
“Without executive sponsorship, organizations are likely to continue operating under existing processes and behaviors.”
Moving from a reactive culture to a proactive one requires both capacity and visible C-suite support to evaluate root causes, sustain momentum, and make prevention a business priority.
Final thoughts
The SSOW roundtable conversations reinforced that moving from recovery to prevention is not simply a technology initiative. It requires reliable data, connected processes, measurable financial outcomes, and executive sponsorship to give teams the capacity and confidence to address errors before they reach the bottom line.
To learn how Cotiviti might help you move from reactive recovery to best practice prevention in P2P, you can request a conversation, visit our solutions page, speak to your primary representative, or share your questions at answers@cotiviti.com.
About the author
 |
Joel Sauve, MBA, CPPM is Vice President of Audit and Solutions Operations at Cotiviti, where he draws on more than 30 years of experience leading audit engagements and technology operations to guide global teams through complex, ever-changing business landscapes. He's passionate about driving value for clients, improving processes, and delivering insights that allow businesses to thrive. |
