Meeting Summary – P2P Discussion with US Team #

Participants: Jhonatan, Yaki, Marina, Effi, Guy
Date: 25/11/2026

1. Overview #

The meeting focused on aligning expectations for relaunching the P2P process with the US team, reviewing current operational gaps, understanding the reasons for past failures, and outlining the steps required to design a unified, functional, and user-accepted process.
Special emphasis was placed on involving key users early, clarifying responsibilities between requesters, PMs, and buyers, and preparing a well-structured design phase before entering UAT.

We didn't find meaningful gap between the suggested design to the desired processes in US

2. Main Discussion Topics #

A. Current P2P Operations #

• The US operates today in a model similar to EPC, esp ecially in Operations and GNA, where many POs are blanket style.
• Task orders = PO lines, commonly used across operations.
• Landlord processes may be improved using Work Confirmations, potentially better than the current “Monday” workflow.
• Draft PO:
  • Needed for invoice OCR creation and pre-submission.
  • Gap exists for non-EPC organizations due to PO sequence requirements.

B. MSA and Contract Structure #

• MSA = agreement signed by both sides defining commercial/operational terms.
• Discussion on how MSAs link to PO creation and how this can better support control, reporting, and negotiation.

C. Materials vs. Services #

• Need to distinguish material orders from service orders, as the requester–buyer roles differ.
• In services: PM often acts as both requester and buyer (negotiation, SOW definition).
• In materials: role separation exists (requester vs. buyer).

D. Where Time Is Lost Today #

• The negotiation phase is the longest step (not necessarily inefficient, but heavily manual).
• Significant manual effort in invoice–PO matching, especially without receipts or proper confirmations.

E. Why the Previous Attempt Failed #

• Users were not sufficiently involved; key users were not part of the design process.
• Communication gaps between PMs, buyers, and the project team.
• Process was perceived as unaligned with reality and too restrictive.

F. What Can Make It Successful This Time #

• Early involvement of key users and “heavy users” (buyers, AP).
• Transparent process walkthroughs before UAT.
• Ensuring PM participation and clear representation of each domain.
• Clear, realistic design decisions that reflect actual field operations.

3. Jhonatan’s Recommendations #

• Key Users should be Jhonatan and Nora.
• He noted that Energix is “tiny” and should aim for simplicity.
• The budget structure is currently too high-level; more granularity may be needed.
• Invoice-to-PO matching is manually handled and needs improvement. (Work confirmation about to solve it Y.K.)
• PMs should participate, as they often manage negotiation and SOW creation.

**4. Lessons Learned #

• Communication must be clearer and ongoing to avoid user resistance, and heavy users must be included from day one.
• PMs must understand what the system will change for them and why.
• Budget structure must be aligned with the project process and not block operations unexpectedly.

5. Follow-Up Action Items #

Yaki #

• Process Design Sessions (must schedule ASAP)
  • Include: Rowan, Nora, Jhon (Materials/Services).
  • Topics:
    • PO in process
    • Draft PO
    • Materials vs. Services
    • Budget restrictions & controls
  • PMs or their representatives must be included.
  • Agenda must be specific—no general discussions.
  • A private preparation meeting with Rowan should also be arranged.
• Conduct 1:1 sessions with:
  • Nora – service processes, negotiation flow, PM workload
  • Rowan – materials processes, buyer–requester separation

Marina #

• Ensure that at least one PM participates in the UAT preparation cycle.

All Participants #

• Provide feedback on pain points, especially around negotiation, PO creation, and invoice matching.
• Identify what information is required at early stages (SOW, budget line, milestone definitions).