Roman Vovchenko
Portrait of Roman Vovchenko
Dubai, UAE

Roman
Vovchenko

Business Process & Systems Analyst

I design how work moves through an organisation, and the ERP that has to carry it. Over six years in consulting and offshore energy I have mapped procurement, compliance and supply chain processes from the value chain down to the single SAP transaction, then worked with the business until the new process actually ran.

SAP S/4HANASAP AribaBPMN 2.0Process architecture
View examples LinkedIn ↗

How I model a process

Top-down, four levels
  1. L0

    Value chain

    Where the process sits in the business and who owns the outcome.

    Source-to-pay · Supply chain
  2. L1

    Process groups

    The handful of flows that make up the area, by role and by system object.

    Supplier-to-plant · Plant-to-plant
  3. L2

    End-to-end flow

    BPMN swimlanes with every hand-off, decision and document between roles.

    Roles · hand-offs · decisions
  4. L3

    System steps

    The transaction, the document it creates and the stock or status it changes.

    STO → Outbound delivery → GI → GR

How I work, by example

3 illustrative scenarios

These are illustrative scenarios built from common industry patterns. They are not employer or client cases, and all names, figures and rules are examples. They show how I approach a problem.

S/4HANASupply chainBPMN

Tracking controlled equipment from warehouse to site and back

How I would move equipment tracking off spreadsheets and into the ERP, so system stock shows where each item physically is.

3 stock states · 5 SAP documents · L1 → L3
See the approach →
ProcurementComplianceDecision model

Turning an anti-bribery policy into a supplier risk model

How I turn a policy written in prose into a short decision flow that gives each new supplier a risk tier and the checks that go with it.

4 questions · 3 tiers · public risk factors
See the approach →
GovernanceLow-codeERP controls

Keeping supplier screening current across regions

How I design a refresh and alert-review cycle so that no supplier with an expired check stays in use without someone deciding it.

2-year cycle · monthly refresh · daily alerts
See the approach →

Open to process and ERP roles in the UAE

Business analysis, process architecture and SAP functional work, in-house or consulting. Reach me by email, phone or LinkedIn.

← All examples Scenario 01 · Illustrative · Supply chain

Tracking controlled equipment from warehouse to site and back

Illustrative scenario. The company, quantities and rules are examples, not an employer or client case.

An industrial company sends controlled equipment from its warehouse to remote sites and ships, and gets part of it back. The trail lives in spreadsheets and paper delivery notes, so the ERP still shows stock in the warehouse long after it has left. This is how I would bring every move into the system.

Focus
As-is walkthroughs, to-be process, SAP object flow
Scope
Warehouse, transport, remote sites, returns
Typical tools
SAP S/4HANA (MM, transportation), BPMN 2.0

Context

Some equipment has to be traceable from purchase to final use: for regulation, for insurance, or because it is expensive and easy to lose. When it moves between locations on paper, the system loses sight of it at the first hand-off.

Typical problem

  • No single owner for an item once it leaves the warehouse.
  • "In transit" and "at site" do not exist as stock states in the system.
  • Partly used equipment comes back on paper, so returned quantities are reconciled by hand.

My approach

I start with as-is walkthroughs with the people who move the material and record their comments directly on the model. From there I build the process architecture top-down:

  • an L1 process list, split by system object (supplier-to-plant, plant-to-plant, plant-to-consumption) and by role;
  • one end-to-end L2 flow in BPMN swimlanes, with separate paths for local moves and cross-border shipments;
  • an L3 rule for every step: which SAP document it creates and which stock figure it changes.

What this gives the business

Every physical move has a matching document and a stock status, so the system can answer "where is it now" for each tracked item. The same model then serves as the reference for configuration, testing and user training.

PHYSICAL STEP SAP STOCK (UNITS) Received in storeGOODS RECEIPT Shipped to siteSTO · DELIVERY · GI Received at siteGR VS PACKING LIST 28 used on siteGI TO CONSUMPTION 12 back to storeSTO · RETURN · GR WAREHOUSEIN TRANSITSITE 4000 0400 0040 0012 1200
Example values. Each physical move creates an SAP document, and the stock figure moves with the item: 40 units shipped to site, 28 used, 12 returned.
← All examples Scenario 02 · Illustrative · Procurement compliance

Turning an anti-bribery policy into a supplier risk model

Illustrative scenario. The risk factors come from public anti-bribery guidance; thresholds and tiers are examples, not an employer or client case.

Anti-bribery policies often describe supplier risk in paragraphs. Buyers read them differently, so the same supplier gets a deep review in one region and none in another. This is how I would turn such a policy into four questions and three tiers.

Focus
Decision modelling between compliance, procurement and screening
Scope
Every new supplier, all regions
Typical tools
Procurement suite (e.g. SAP Ariba), screening database, BPMN

Context

New suppliers are screened before they can be awarded work. The depth of the check should follow the risk: who the supplier deals with on the company's behalf, what role it plays, where it operates and how much is spent with it.

Typical problem

  • The criteria are spread across a policy, a country list and a spend report.
  • Nobody can tell from a supplier record why it was rated high or low.
  • Compliance reviews cases that the rules would let the screening team close.

My approach

  • Reduce the criteria to a few yes/no questions asked in a fixed order.
  • Tie each tier to one set of checks and one approver, so the tier explains the work that follows.
  • Let the screening team close irrelevant alerts, and keep compliance review for the highest tier and real findings.

What this gives the business

Every supplier gets its tier from the same answers, and the record shows which answer set it. Compliance time goes to the suppliers that carry the most risk.

New supplierREQUESTED Acts for uswith officials? NO Agent, brokeror customs? NO Country CPIbelow 40? YES Spend over$250k a year? YES YES NO YES NO ENHANCED ENHANCED SIMPLIFIED ENHANCED STANDARD ENHANCEDFull due-diligence questionnaire, compliance approval STANDARDShort questionnaire, escalate on any red flag SIMPLIFIEDDatabase screening only
Illustrative model. The risk factors follow common public guidance (OECD, Transparency International's Corruption Perceptions Index); the thresholds are example values.
← All examples Scenario 03 · Illustrative · Supplier governance

Keeping supplier screening current across regions

Illustrative scenario. Periods, statuses and tools are examples, not an employer or client case.

Supplier checks expire, and screening databases raise new alerts all the time. Without a defined cycle, expired suppliers stay active and alerts pile up. This is how I would design the refresh and review processes that close both gaps.

Focus
Process design, regional ownership, status rules
Scope
Central screening team and procurement in each region
Typical tools
Screening database, low-code request form, ERP

Context

Re-checking every supplier at expiry costs money and time, and many expiring suppliers are no longer used. The regions know which ones matter; the central team owns the tool and the deadlines.

Typical problem

  • Expiry dates are not tracked, so checks run out without anyone noticing.
  • Nobody decides whether an expiring supplier still needs a refresh.
  • Alerts have no rule for who can close them and when compliance has to look.

My approach

  • A regular export of suppliers close to expiry, split by region so each region sees only its own.
  • A fixed review window and a simple request form, with reminders before the window closes.
  • A clear default: a supplier nobody asks to keep goes on hold and is blocked in the ERP until someone requests it.
  • An alert triage where the screening team closes false positives, and anything material goes to compliance with a short list of possible outcomes.

What this gives the business

Every expiring supplier gets an explicit decision. Regions only handle their own suppliers, and compliance only sees the alerts that need judgement.

REFRESH · MONTHLY ALERT REVIEW · DAILY Export expiring90 DAYS AHEAD Region reviews30-DAY WINDOW Stillneeded? YES NO / NO REQUEST Refresh requestRE-CHECK · APPROVE ApprovedVALID 2 YEARS Status: on holdALERTS PAUSED Blocked in ERPUNTIL REQUESTED New alertsFROM SCREENING DB Close attriage? YES Close as false positive NO ComplianceREVIEW 1 · Stop using supplier 2 · Ask for more information 3 · Keep, with a recorded note
Illustrative model with example periods. The key design choice is the default: a supplier nobody asks to keep cannot be used until someone decides it should be.