Hotel Purchasing with Limited Staff: Who Should Buy, Receive and Pay?

A hotel with limited staff should first separate purchasing decisions, confirmation of delivery and control of payments, then arrange independent review where duties genuinely cannot be separated. Effective hotel purchasing controls depend on who holds the authority and who supplies the evidence, rather than the number of signatures on a document.

A purchasing officer may obtain quotations, arrange deliveries and enter orders. But if that same person can independently confirm receipt, change settlement records and complete payment, several procedures may still be controlled by one individual. Conversely, requiring the owner to approve every routine spare part may delay repairs without adding any verification of the goods or price.

The purpose of dividing purchasing responsibilities is to keep supplies flowing while ensuring that someone is responsible for each critical judgment and that someone can check it.

Establish what each person is actually confirming

Signatures in a purchasing process can represent several different judgments: whether the business needs the purchase, whether the terms have been authorized, whether the goods or services have been delivered as agreed, and whether payment is due. Budget approval does not confirm receipt of acceptable goods, and an invoice cannot replace inspection and acceptance.

China's Ministry of Finance, in Application Guideline No. 7 for Enterprise Internal Control: Purchasing, separately identifies responsibilities and authority for requisitions, approval, purchasing, inspection and acceptance, and payment. This provides a reference for reviewing the process. Each hotel should still determine its arrangements according to the rules applicable to its operating entity, business risks and authorization requirements, rather than apply one responsibility chart to every property.

The general manager can begin by asking the people involved some straightforward questions: who can explain why the purchase is needed, who may decide the supplier and purchasing terms, who can demonstrate that the agreed goods or services were actually received, who checks the basis for payment, and who executes it? Saying that purchasing handles it and finance checks it is often insufficiently specific.

Assign purchasing, receiving and payment responsibilities

The following is an example for discussion, rather than a standard staffing structure. Existing employees can perform the relevant roles, but the hotel should identify situations in which people approve their own actions, provide the only evidence of their own work or supervise themselves.

The requesting department explains the purpose, specifications, required date and basis for the quantity. The approver assesses necessity, budget and authority. An employee should not obtain purchasing authority simply by submitting their own request. For a separate examination of whether the quantity is appropriate, refer to Hotel Guest Supply Overstock: How Should Purchasing Quantities Be Adjusted? There is no need to recreate an inventory calculation system inside the responsibility policy.

The purchaser obtains quotations, places the order and follows delivery under the approved terms. Changes to price, specifications or supplier should be referred to the person with the appropriate authority. The purchaser should not simply alter the original approval record to make subsequent documents agree.

The person responsible for inspection and acceptance confirms the quantity, specifications and condition of what was delivered. The user department determines whether the goods are suitable. Equipment or technical services require confirmation by someone with the relevant capability. Delivery to the front desk demonstrates only that someone received a package; it does not automatically establish that the equipment is acceptable or a repair service is complete.

The finance reviewer checks settlement terms against the contract, purchasing and acceptance records, accounting for adjustments such as advance payments, amounts already paid, returns and deductions to avoid duplicate payment. The payment approver makes the authorization decision, and the payment operator acts on that approval. Roles, accounts and payment tools must also meet the funds-management requirements applicable to the hotel.

The essential feature is that evidence can be cross-checked. Acceptance records should reflect actual verification, and the payment reviewer should have direct access to the original records. A purchaser's verbal assurance that a department has agreed cannot replace that department's confirmation.

Make gaps in combined roles explicit

Suppose a hotel has no dedicated storekeeper, so the purchaser both contacts suppliers and enters receipt information. This is an illustrative method, not a client case. The hotel can arrange for the department using the goods to verify delivery, with finance consulting that confirmation before reviewing settlement. The convenience of having the purchaser enter data is retained, but that person cannot also provide the only evidence of delivery.

If nobody is available for independent verification at night, specify which check is missing, who will complete it, by when, and who will follow up if it is late. Photographs can help record quantity and appearance, but may not establish equipment performance, service quality or the condition of food. Their usefulness should not be overstated to avoid assigning a verifier.

The Ministry of Finance's 2017 Internal Control Standards for Small Enterprises (Trial) addresses resource constraints that prevent the separation of incompatible duties, identifying alternative controls such as checking transaction documents and periodic asset counts. Hotels within its scope can use this as a basis for designing arrangements. Alternative controls must address the actual gap and cannot circumvent separation requirements under other applicable rules.

For example, a later review can help detect an irregularity, but cannot turn an irrecoverable payment into a low-risk transaction. A purchase involving a material amount, a high advance payment, delivery that is difficult to verify or a related-party relationship warrants stronger checks before commitment. Where necessary, the owner or appropriate authorized body should decide whether to add personnel, obtain specialist verification or change the transaction terms.

Small, routine purchases can follow simpler procedures within authorized limits, while remaining subject to spot checks. Repeated temporary exceptions also deserve examination. They may indicate that the standard process does not fit the business, or that someone is repeatedly bypassing it. Establish which explanation applies.

Match the responsibility chart to actual access rights

A chart naming three responsible people does not establish that system access has been separated. If a purchaser uses a shared account that can change supplier details, orders and acceptance results, as well as initiate and release payments, the documented division of duties may fail.

The general manager should have finance and the people responsible for system access review actual account permissions. Assign viewing, editing and payment rights according to work requirements and retain change records. Where feasible, make critical changes subject to independent review. A hotel without a purchasing system can still reduce one person's control over information by keeping original documents separately, retaining amendment histories and obtaining acceptance confirmation independently.

Owners should also act within the authorization and recordkeeping arrangements when making purchases. If an owner directs an exceptional purchase but asks finance to document it afterwards as a routine approval, the record will not accurately explain how the decision was made. Special authorization should identify its reason, scope and responsibility; retrospective signatures should not conceal what actually happened.

Provide a workable route for urgent purchases

Consider a hypothetical equipment failure at night that requires an urgent spare part. The hotel can define in advance the duty employee's purchasing authority, the approver who can be contacted and the arrangements for subsequent verification. Amount limits and deadlines should reflect the hotel's risks, rather than a universal figure.

At the time, the purchaser records the impact of the failure, why an immediate purchase is necessary, the supplier, the basis for the price and the approval. Once the part arrives, a suitably capable person verifies the installation or result, and finance checks payment against the contract and payment arrangements. If an urgent advance cannot wait for final acceptance, separately document its basis, authorization and subsequent tracking. Do not present an advance as settlement for a purchase that has already passed acceptance.

When a discrepancy arises, establish whether it concerns missing records, a quality dispute, duplicate settlement or another irregularity, and refer the response to an authorized person. Distinguish undisputed amounts due from disputed items requiring verification, and handle them under the contract and applicable requirements. Incomplete internal paperwork should not become a blanket reason to withhold payment from suppliers.

Test the arrangements with one responsibility chart and one purchase

An operating meeting can use a purchasing responsibility and authority chart. For each stage, record the person performing it, the approver or reviewer, the original evidence required, system or payment permissions, conflicting combined roles, alternative controls, deadlines and the escalation contact. Before assigning names, define the fact that each stage must verify. This makes it possible to assess whether the assigned person has the capability and information needed.

Then select one actual purchase and trace it from the request through to payment. Check whether approved terms changed, whether the acceptance reviewer actually verified delivery, whether finance saw the original evidence, and whether account permissions allow the purchaser to bypass review. Complete paperwork is only a starting point. The value of the check depends on whether the records are reliable and discrepancies can be explained.

A low-cost starting point is a trial covering one purchasing category over one actual settlement cycle, authorized by the general manager and led by finance. Operating departments supply delivery records; those responsible for system access supply permission lists; the owner or an authorized supervisor reviews significant exceptions. The person performing a control cannot demonstrate that supervision has occurred through self-checking alone.

At the end of the trial, examine whether fewer transactions lack independent verification, exceptions close on time, and duplicate or discrepant payments are addressed. Also check whether normal purchasing has suffered unnecessary additional delays. Finding no problems does not automatically establish that controls are effective: confirm that the checks covered critical permissions and evidence.

An unexplained material payment, unauthorized alteration of original records or an overdue exception review should be escalated. Where necessary, suspend the relevant exception authority, complete the missing checks and then decide whether to restore it. Normal purchasing across the hotel need not come to a halt. If the process merely increases waiting without obtaining additional verification, adjust the review point instead of adding more signatures.

Food, engineering and other specialist purchases must still meet their relevant quality, safety and professional requirements. This chart cannot replace specialist acceptance. For a hotel with limited staff, MarvelBros C&T recommends starting with one actual purchase: map the real decisions, evidence and permissions, then decide which role or authorization needs to change.