PART – 1
In the above-given case, a luxurious firm performs its functions through ERP software. The employee of any department of the firm as they can enter the purchase request for the items which are either out of stock or in less quantity. For certain non-moving stocks or special items that are of not in regular use are to be ordered from a specialist supplier from whom the regular supplies are not being bought. The Accounts Payable department can raise the request by placing a time purchase order. The risk can be mitigated by segregation of the duty of raising the invoices on the customers and giving the duty to the other employee be it either Employee G or Employee B. Purchase department process all the purchase request from the prior day and try to raise a request of a larger order from a single supplier to bargain the volume discount (Keiper, Williams, & Fried, 2017). The purchasing agents use the internet to choose the supplier comparing the prices. The department now enters in the ERP software about the details of the suppliers along with the information related to the inventory. Any orders beyond $ 10,000 must be approved by the manager of the purchasing department. The department uses the EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) to the supplier for placing the purchase order and where it is not feasible to place the order to the through electronic data interface there is a probability to raise an order by printing and mailing the paper purchase order (Peltier-Rivest, 2018). The order receiving department has read-only access to the outstanding purchase orders. Generally, they have the systems developed to verify the inventory with the outstanding purchase orders (Ojo, 2017). But sometimes at the rush periods, the trucks are being unloaded without verifying the purchase order and inventory are being unloaded and kept in the corner of the warehouse and are kept till the goods are not being verified (Jeppesen, 2019). If the goods are not found in line with the outstanding purchase order the receiving employee shall contact the supplier raising the request to return the goods received by him. After the order is received the order is verified with the purchase order. If the discrepancy is more than 5%, the receiving employee shall raise the request and send an email to the purchasing department manager. The receiving department uses the online software system to enter the quantity received by them and on being entering the quantity of the goods received in the ERP software the inventory is then moved to the inventories stores management. The inventory stores department now matches up the inventory with the previously stocks held by them and added to the previous inventory and are being identified and are being identified in the batches as they have been received and are stored safely in the inventory stores (Egbunike, & Egbunike, 2017).
There is weakness in the ERP system in the luxurious firm are:
The employee from any department can raise the purchase order request which is inappropriate in the ERP environment. Rather it shall be that the order from all the departments relating to inventory requirement shall be raised for the stocks that are being out of the stock or having small quantities. The purchase department shall now process the order for the departments who have raised the order (Takavingofa, 2017).
In case of a non- moving stock the accounts payable department raises the order for the special items from the special suppliers from whom regular items are not being purchased. In such a case the order raised by the department can be at inflated prices as they have raised the order and the ounce to pay off the creditor lies in their hand thus might result in manipulating the prices (Harris, & Teplisky, 2018). Rather to raise the purchase order of non-moving items a person should have being designated for raising the request for the special item and non- moving stock which can be help in segregating the duties of the purchasing department as well as to pay off the debts. Hence, reducing the chances of manipulations and fraud (AMOAH, 2016).
As per the current policy of the firm any purchase beyond the limit of $10,000 shall be approved by the purchase department manager. This might raise the chances of the manipulations from the purchasing department of the ordering of the stock at inflated prices or can be break off into parts by the employee in the purchasing department to manipulate the prices. To help with the issue the request shall be made to accept the order beyond the total $ 10,000 shall be changed to any order request shall initially be accepted and approved by the manager of the inventory department (Nawawi, & Salin, 2018). Further, if the amount of order is beyond the amount of $10,000 it shall be approved by the purchase department manager. . The employee of any department of the firm as they can enter the purchase request for the items which are either out of stock or in less quantity (Sparrow, 2019). The order receiving department has read-only access to the outstanding purchase orders. Generally, they have the systems developed to verify the inventory with the outstanding purchase orders (Ojo, 2017)
In the current scenario, the firm unloads the trucks during the rush periods at the corner of the warehouses and the order is being accepted initially before entering into the books at the gate and not verified and there might be a possibility of mixing the inventory stored by them (Varma, & Khan, 2017). However, this error can be cleared if the goods verified and goods not verified shall be entered in different books at the time of entry of the truck before unloading it in the warehouse. And the inventory verified and not verified can be kept at two different sections of the warehouse as it will result in the chances of mixing and easy identification of the stocks inflow into the warehouse (Gunasegaran, et al. 2018). For certain non-moving stocks or special items that are of not in regular use are to be ordered from a specialist supplier from whom the regular supplies are not being bought
In the current scenario, the receiving employee shall be responsible for contacting the supplier if the goods received are in variance with the purchase order. In such a case the employee might not want to receive the order as if there is the defect in the goods received, the employee has to perform the additional duty which would create a burden on his shoulder and might weaken the employee relations (AO, 2018). However, the change in the ERP environment might help the firm to build a strong relationship with the employees. The proposed scenario shall be the good received by any of the employees shall be further forwarded to the inventory department and in case of any variance with the purchasing order, the inventory store department shall contact the supplier and return the goods stored (Wells, 2017).
PART – 2
Segregation of duties means that no employee shall be responsible for two activities in the same line of operation to reduce the chances of the fraud. If any error is incurred by one of the employees it should be bought in the notice of the other and thus increases the transparency in the firms (Knechel, & Salterio, 2016).
In the above-given case study of the luxurious firm ERP objectives for the revenue cycle activities, there are several improper segregation of duties. Some of them are:
Employee A is responsible for accepting the orders as well as billing customers when it was required. Even beyond that, he was also responsible for approving the credit which will raise the conflict in the interest of the employee. Thus, the duty shall be segregated to reduce the conflict of the interest of the employee. To mitigate the risk the approval of credit is to be transferred to Employee D or to employee I (Guo, et al. 2016).
Employee C is responsible for accepting the order and maintaining the accounts receivable. He is taking the order and it maintained the accounts receivable of the clients and this might give rise in chance of the conflict between the two duties. The accounts receivable might be manipulated by accepting the order and the maintenance of the accounts. However, to mitigate the risk the work of maintaining the accounts receivable shall be taken from Employee C and transferred to Employee H or to Employee I. As well as for the issuing the cash memo to mitigate the risk the work shall be given to any of the other employees other than Employee D and Employee I (Burke, & Sanney, 2018).
Employee D is responsible in the firm for approving credit and issuing the cash memos as well as accepting the remittance from the customer this will result in the conflict of interest of the employee as the employee issuing the credit memo and receiving remittances from the customer might increase the risk of cash misplaced. Hence, proper segregation of duties shall be prevailed to lower the risk of conflict. As well as for the issuing the cash memo to mitigate the risk the work shall be given to any of the other employees other than Employee D and Employee I (Kong, et al. 2018).
Employee E is responsible in the revenue cycle for the inventory shipping and billing the customer but the billing is to be done by the Employee G, or Employee B or Employee A and thus raise a chance of the risk involved in getting the bills issued by employee E might be under-priced to earn the shipment cost directly from the customer not included in the invoices raised by him and the thus raising the risk of the ERP system involved in the revenue cycle. The risk can be mitigated by segregation of the duty of raising the invoices on the customers and giving the duty to the other employee be it either Employee G or Employee B. Segregation of duties means that no employee shall be responsible for two activities in the same line of operation to reduce the chances of the fraud (Sherif, Pitre,, & Kamara, 2016).
Employee H is responsible for maintaining the accounts receivable and accepting the remittance of the customers this increases the chances of manipulation in the accounts receivable as well as in the cash. The person responsible for handling the cash shall not be given any responsibility to maintain the accounts receivable and vice versa. This risk can be mitigated by giving the responsibility to handle the remittances to any other employee other than employee H and employee I and both the employee shall only be responsible for maintaining the accounts receivable (Hacker, 2019).
assignment help, online assignment help, assignment writing service, do my assignment, nursing assignment help, accounting assignment help, finance assignment help, management assignment help, marketing assignment help, law assignment help, economics assignment help, research paper writing service, write my assignment, assignment help services, mba assignment, engineering assignment help, university assignment help