Industries
Public Sector
Public entities do not get to choose their systems of record. IFMIS carries the finances, e-GP carries the procurement, and since July 2025 every national and county procurement runs through it. The room to improve is not in replacing those systems — it is in everything the entity does around them.
The situation
What we usually find
For state corporations, agencies, authorities and county entities working within mandated national platforms.
The e-GP platform launched in April 2025 and became the exclusive route for public procurement from 1 July 2025, integrated with IFMIS, KRA iTax and the Business Registration Service, with full transition due by the end of FY 2026/27. That is a substantial change in how entities plan, commit and evidence spending, delivered on a timetable nobody chose.
What entities are left holding is the work between the mandated systems. Internal approvals ahead of a requisition. Records that satisfy an auditor when the national system holds only the transaction. Board and oversight reporting that has to be assembled from platforms designed for consolidation upward, not for management within.
This is unglamorous work and it is where most of the recoverable time sits. It is also where audit findings come from, and public-sector audit findings are read by people outside the entity.
How the work flows
Where the pressure points are
Every business in this sector runs a version of this cycle. These are the points where it strains when the systems behind it do not join up — and where the value of joining them up shows first.
-
Plan
Procurement plans built in spreadsheets, then re-entered into the mandated platform
-
Approve
Internal approvals conducted on paper and email, ahead of a system that records only the outcome
-
Commit
Commitment against vote known centrally but not by the department that is spending it
-
Deliver
Contract performance tracked by whoever holds the file, not by the entity
-
Account
Management and oversight reporting assembled by hand from systems built to report upward
What you would run
The products behind it
Not every product, and never one we cannot justify for your operation. These are the ones that fit this sector, and the reason each one is here.
TeamKazi
Project and programme tracking with cost-to-date, milestones and documented obligations — for capital works and donor-funded programmes where an entity has to evidence delivery as well as spend.
Sage 200
For state corporations and commercially operating entities that keep their own books alongside the national systems, with budget control and commitment tracking at department level.
What we would bring
The work around the software
The products are only half of it. These are the practices an engagement in this sector actually draws on, and what each one does here.
Process & Operational Excellence
The internal workflow around the mandated systems — requisition, approval, records — which is where the delay and the audit findings actually originate.
Data, Analytics & Business Intelligence
Management and oversight reporting drawn from what the entity holds, rather than assembled by hand from platforms designed to report upward.
Executive Technology Services
Independent technical judgement for boards and accounting officers evaluating proposals, where the entity has no internal technology executive.
Managed Technology Services
Support and continuity for the systems the entity does own, with the accountability written down rather than assumed.
Where we'd start
The first move
We would map one procurement from the moment somebody identifies a need to the moment it is recorded in the national system — every internal approval, every document, every wait. The elapsed time in that map is nearly always dominated by steps that happen before the mandated platform is touched at all.
Where we are not the answer
We do not replace IFMIS, e-GP or any mandated national platform, and we would treat any firm offering to as a warning sign. We also do not participate in procurement processes we have advised on the specification for — that is a conflict, and it is one we decline rather than manage. Our work is the internal process, the reporting layer and the systems the entity genuinely owns.
Is this how your operation runs?
Tell us where it strains, and we will tell you plainly which of this is relevant to you and which of it is not — before you commit to anything.
Also in industries