Opportunity 01 · Accounts payable
Invoice intake.
Prepared for a decision.
A focused look at the work between receiving an invoice and preparing an approved record for the finance system.
This sample illustrates the structure and reasoning of an audit. The organisation, circumstances and figures are fictional assumptions. No interviews, measurements or system checks have been performed.
Recommendation
Validate an assisted preparation workflow.
Extract invoice fields, check them against existing records and present a draft beside the original document. Keep approval with accounts payable. Confirm sample quality and ERP test access before commissioning a production build.
Assumed volume
Assumed baseline
600 × 12 ÷ 60
The work under review
Invoice receipt, field entry, supplier and total checks, preparation for approval, and transfer of the approved record into the ERP.
Payment execution, supplier bank-detail changes, tax decisions and changes to approval policy sit outside this proposed scope.
The current friction
The same information is read and entered by hand. Missing references and possible duplicates interrupt the normal path. The person resolving an exception needs both the document and the record.
These are example conditions to validate with the process owner.
Proposed path
The benefit case
Time released.
Assumptions visible.
The opportunity is to reduce active handling while preserving the checks and approval the process needs.
| Measure | Cautious | Working case | Upper case |
|---|---|---|---|
| Current handling per invoice | 12 minutes | 12 minutes | 12 minutes |
| Future handling, including review and exceptions | 8 minutes | 6 minutes | 4 minutes |
| Future monthly handling | 80 hours | 60 hours | 40 hours |
| Potential capacity released | 40 hours | 60 hours | 80 hours |
Calculation: invoices × (current minutes − future minutes) ÷ 60. All scenario inputs are assumptions. Waiting for approval is excluded from active handling. Exception work must be included when measuring future performance.
Capacity needs a use.
Time released could help the team handle higher volume or clear other work. A cash saving depends on an actual reduction in spending. This example makes no cash-saving or financial-payback claim.
Costs to establish
- Implementation and integration work.
- Document extraction or model usage.
- Hosting, storage and operating records.
- Monitoring, evaluation and support.
- Staff review, training and process ownership.
Evidence to collect
- Invoice volume across a representative period.
- Handling time for normal and exception cases.
- Document types, scans and missing-field frequency.
- Current supplier data and duplicate-check rules.
- System access, charges and test environment.
| Option | What it could improve | What to establish |
|---|---|---|
| Existing ERP functionality | Reduce entry using tools already available. | Features, licences and invoice-format coverage. |
| Assisted extraction and review | Prepare a checked draft for review. | Field quality, review effort and safe write access. |
| Process standardisation | Reduce missing references and inconsistent intake. | Supplier and internal adoption of a clearer process. |
The next investment decision
A pilot with a purpose.
Test the assumptions that could change the build.
Proposed pilot scope
One intake route, one team and approved examples covering the formats it receives.
Prepare drafts beside the source documents. Test posting in a safe environment, subject to supported ERP access.
Decisions to resolve first
- Which fields and checks are required?
- Who reviews exceptions and approves posting?
- Does the ERP support safe test and write access?
Proposed acceptance checklist
- The source stays visible.
The reviewer can inspect the invoice and correct fields before approval.
- Exceptions reach a person.
Missing fields, poor scans and possible duplicates stop the flow and show a reason for review.
- Posting requires approval.
Tests confirm that approval is required and repeated requests do not silently create a second record.
- Interrupted work can be recovered.
An unavailable ERP leaves a visible state. The recovery and retry paths are tested and documented.
- The benefit can be measured.
Measure normal and exception handling. Compare quality, effort and running cost with the baseline.
Proposed requirements, not completed results. The test set, quality thresholds and release decision would be agreed before implementation.
| Responsibility | Required contribution |
|---|---|
| Process owner | Agree policy, exceptions, success measures and acceptance. |
| Accounts-payable users | Provide approved examples and assess the review effort. |
| Systems owner | Confirm access, test environment and data handling. |
| Delivery team | Scope the pilot, evaluate the cases and record findings. |
The decision after the pilot
Proceed when the workflow meets its criteria, running costs are understood and the business owner accepts it. Otherwise, refine the approach or reconsider the investment.
To discuss an audit of your own process: devops.ly/contact