E Payables Aberdeen Report Aug 2010

E-Payables 2010 The Strategic Value of Accounts

Payable Automation

August 2010

Scott Pezza, William Jan

~ Underwritten, in Part, by ~

Not for

Dist

ributi

on

E-Payables 2010: The Strategic Value of Accounts Payable Automation Page 2

© 2009 Aberdeen Group. Telephone: 617 854 5200

Executive Summary Research Benchmark

Aberdeen’s Research Benchmarks provide an in-depth and comprehensive look into process, procedure, methodologies, and technologies with best practice identification and actionable recommendations

For Accounts Payable (A/P), the time is ripe for redefinition. Difficult economic times have heightened the need for cost-cutting efficiencies and have brought focus to the value (and current lack) of visibility into invoice and payment status. In a paper-based world, A/P’s ability to meet these challenges is severely hampered. As the economy continues its recovery and business volume picks up, leading companies will be those who pursue strategies to automate their back-office functions, opening up new areas for cost savings, cash management, and improved supplier relations. This study explores how enterprises of all sizes can derive efficiency gains from automation, and how these improvements enable them to better pursue strategic initiatives.

Research Methodology Maturity-Class Framework

Based on Key Performance Indicators (KPIs), Aberdeen segments companies into:

√ Best-in-Class: Top 20% of performers

√ Industry Average: Middle 50% of performers

√ Laggard: Bottom 30% of performers

Aberdeen evaluated over 310 companies between March and April of 2010, in two surveys which together spanned the full payables process from receipt through settlement. Top performing companies achieved:

• Invoice processing costs that are, on average, 76% below their peers

• Invoice processing cycle times that are, on average, 82.5% faster than their peers

Comparative Maturity Assessment Although large enterprises showed markedly higher maturity in terms of current capabilities and adoption of available technologies, ultimate performance was not so simply explained. Focusing on top-performing respondents, regardless of size:

• 72% of Best-in-Class companies currently have an active accounts payable improvement initiative in place

• 60% of Best-in-Class companies have standardized payment processes throughout their organizations

• 59% of Best-in-Class companies have clear policies in place governing the invoice receipt-through-payment workflow

Required Actions A key starting point in improving accounts payable is, “Process restructuring - taking advantage of available technology.”

~ Margaret Anderson, Controller, PBM Products

In addition to the specific recommendations presented in Chapter Three, companies of all sizes should:

• Ensure that all interested stakeholders (A/P, Finance, Treasury, Procurement, etc.) are involved in crafting payments policies, rather than taking a strict functional territory view

• Catalogue existing repetitive, non-value-add activities to create a list of potential areas for automation, centralization, or outsourcing

www.aberdeen.com Fax: 617 723 7897

Not for

Dist

ributi

on


© 2009 Aberdeen Group. Telephone: 617 854 5200 www.aberdeen.com Fax: 617 723 7897

Table of Contents Executive Summary....................................................................................................... 2

Research Methodology ........................................................................................... 2 Comparative Maturity Assessment...................................................................... 2 Required Actions...................................................................................................... 2

Chapter One: All Payments, Great and Small....................................................... 4 Business Context ..................................................................................................... 4 Setting the Stage: Revenue-based Analysis......................................................... 5

Chapter Two: Taking a Closer Look ....................................................................11 Comparative Assessment.....................................................................................13 Capabilities and Enablers ......................................................................................14

Chapter Three: Required Actions .........................................................................20 Small Business Steps to Success..........................................................................20 Midsize Business Steps to Success .....................................................................20 Large Enterprise Steps to Success .....................................................................21

Appendix A: Research Methodology.....................................................................23 Appendix B: Related Aberdeen Research............................................................26 Featured Underwriters ..............................................................................................27

Figures Figure 1: Common Pressures Driving Focus on A/P ............................................ 4 Figure 2: Avenues for Invoice Receipt by Revenue Group ................................. 6 Figure 3: Methods for Handling Incoming Invoices ............................................... 7 Figure 4: Overall Payments Mix by Revenue Group............................................. 8 Figure 5: Current Adoption of Supporting Technologies..................................17

Tables Table 1: Comparative Performance by Size............................................................ 5 Table 2: Average Transaction Cost by Payment Type......................................... 8 Table 3: A Comparative Framework......................................................................13 Table 4: Payment Methods Used by Supplier Type*...........................................19 Table 5: Study Demographic Information .............................................................23 Table 6: The PACE Framework Key ......................................................................24 Table 7: The Competitive Framework Key ..........................................................25 Table 8: The Relationship Between PACE and the Competitive Framework.........................................................................................................................................25

Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Chapter One: All Payments, Great and Small

Business Context Fast Facts

√ 72% of all received invoices are paper-based

√ 31% of corporations have established electronic payments requirements as a standard means of conducting business with key suppliers

Traditionally, the Accounts Payable (A/P) function has been viewed as a purely tactical intermediary that ensures a company’s suppliers receive payment for goods and services delivered. The root of A/P's problems can be traced back to its dependence on paper and the resulting lack of visibility. With over 70% of incoming invoices paper-based, the receipt and approval processes is completely manual for nearly 60% of responding companies, and the bulk of payments made by paper checks, the average accounts payable department is awash in paper. It is not surprising that more than half of all businesses surveyed have limited transparency into the A/P operations that have the potential to help drive value across the enterprise. The sections that follow present the current state of A/P functions, the cost impacts of inefficiency, and outline how top-performing companies are leading the way in digitizing documents and automating processes for enhanced corporate performance and external collaboration.

Payables Automation - Motivational Factors Whether focusing on the receipt or payments ends of the accounts payable process, companies are responding to a common set of pressures driving their focus on A/P process improvement. For recent respondents, two motivating factors stand out from the rest: a directive from the C-level to reduce operational costs, and the negative impact caused by a reliance on paper documents (Figure 1). The latter item encompasses a lack of visibility into information residing on paper documents as well as stakeholder pushback due to the inefficiency of manually processing physical invoices.

E-Payables Defined

Aberdeen utilizes "e-payables" as an all-encompassing term to refer to the automated processes associated with the Accounts Payable (A/P) function, including invoice receipt and handling, reconciliation and approval, disbursement scheduling, settlement (including confirmation and reporting), and internal and external service support.

Figure 1: Common Pressures Driving Focus on A/P

14%

19%

24%

51%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Impact of Process Inefficiency

Risk of Fraud

Difficulty Managing Cash

Difficulty of Working withInformation in Paper Format

Top-down Cost-reduction Mandate

Percentage of Respondents, n = 318

14%

19%

24%

51%

55%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Impact of Process Inefficiency

Risk of Fraud

Difficulty Managing Cash

Difficulty of Working withInformation in Paper Format

Top-down Cost-reduction Mandate

Percentage of Respondents, n = 318 Note: Respondents were asked to select the top two pressures for improving accounts

payable in two surveys: Invoice Receipt and Workflow (n=152) and Global Payments (n=166) Source: Aberdeen Group, August 2010


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Setting the Stage: Revenue-based Analysis “We are focusing attention on measuring DPO and finding ways to lengthen the period.”

~ Ronald Zilkowski, CFO, Cuisine Solutions

Annual revenue can, at times, be a useful proxy for attributes such as organizational complexity, availability of resources, and maturity of process and technological capabilities. It can also provide a common ground upon which to analyze related groups of data which were collected separately. This study will utilize the revenue groups defined in Table 1 as a basis for examining the potential options available to accounts payable professionals as they seek to improve their departmental performance and aid their organizations in improving overall corporate results.

Table 1: Comparative Performance by Size

Definition of Revenue Group Mean Group Performance

Small Businesses:Up to $50million in

annual revenue

$16.63 cost to process a single invoice 17.9-day cycle time to process a single invoice (receipt through payment scheduling)

Mid-size Businesses: Between $50million

and $1billion in annual revenue


Large Enterprises: Over $1billion in annual revenue


Best-in-Class Companies: $4.84 cost to process a single invoice


The Top 20% of Performers in April's

Payables Study

3.71-day cycle time to process a single invoice (receipt through payment scheduling)

Source: Aberdeen Group, August 2010

At first glance, these results may seem counterintuitive. Larger enterprises are more likely to be automated, so why is there such similarity in performance between the groups? For larger enterprises, the overall results mask what they achieve when processing electronic invoices: costs of $6.61 when they are PO-based, and $9.08 when non-PO. But the full story is a bit more complicated. For both midsize and large firms, their overall performance is compromised by two main factors: processing times for exceptions (which require manual intervention) between one and three days longer than for small businesses, and higher total exception rates (an absolute 3% higher for large, and 3.7% higher for midsize respondents). This serves to highlight an important lesson: successful A/P automation initiatives do not simply rely on the electronification of payables transactions to yield the desired results - they maintain an eye on effective exception management to ensure that the gains in one area are not dampened by inefficiency in another.

Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Paper, Paper Everywhere

“The current process is very manual. We’re looking to reengineer process, eliminate paper.”

~ Thomas Dadmun, Vice President, Adtran

As illustrated in Figure 2, for the vast majority of respondents, paper invoices are a normal part of the payments process. Indeed, for these companies, paper-based invoices account for 72% of their total invoice volume. Interestingly, large enterprises reported the lowest paper-based volumes (64%), followed by small (75%) and midsize businesses (81%). In addition to P-cards, EDI/XML and Supplier Portals (shown in Figure 2), large enterprises are also outpacing their peers in adoption of alternative invoicing methods, such as Evaluated Receipt Settlement (ERS), Electronic Invoice Presentment and Payment (EIPP), and supplier networks. In this respect, larger businesses are displaying a portfolio approach to invoice management - accommodating a greater variety of submission methods than their peers. While this flexibility may expand the number of suppliers with which connections are possible, it also threatens to increase the complexity of managing these relationships from the IT perspective (although this prospect is outside of the scope of Aberdeen's current research effort).

Figure 2: Avenues for Invoice Receipt by Revenue Group

94%

75%

53%

25% 22%

3%

94%

77%71%

31%21%

13%

93%

73%67%

53% 50%

22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Regular Mail /Paper

E-Mail Fax PurchasingCard

statements(P-Card)

Electronicdata (XML,

EDI)

SupplierPortal

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts, n

= 1

52 Small Midsize Large94%

75%

53%

25% 22%

3%

94%

77%71%

31%21%

13%

93%

73%67%

53% 50%

22%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Regular Mail /Paper

E-Mail Fax PurchasingCard

statements(P-Card)

Electronicdata (XML,

EDI)

SupplierPortal

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts, n

= 1

52 Small Midsize Large

Source: Aberdeen Group, April 2010

The Document-to-Data Spectrum As discussed in April's Invoicing and Workflow benchmark, the effort required to manage the received invoice varies depending on where it falls along the document to data spectrum. Figure 3 outlines the approaches responding companies take when handling incoming invoices that have not been transmitted as pure data. For the majority of all respondents, invoices remain in physical form for the duration of the approval process. Standing out from small and midsize companies, a substantial number of large enterprises noted converting paper invoices to electronic form at the end of the approval phase ("back-end document capture"), providing a digital document that is more easily stored and located for future reference. While


Not for

Dist

ributi

on

http://www.aberdeen.com/aberdeen-library/6341/RA-invoicing-workflow-operational-cost.aspx



"We are currently undertaking a review of our finance systems to develop a road map for the next five to 10 years. This will include identifying solutions and suppliers to then bring about process change.”

~ Teresa Warren, Senior Finance Manager, J D

Wetherspoon

this approach does ease the burden of future inquiries, it does not enable valuable efficiency gains during approval processing.

It is the front-end capture options, however, that introduce true performance gains. For example, respondents who have implemented front-end document capture (creating a scanned digital copy of a physical invoice to be used in the approval process) report invoice processing times 34% faster than those of companies who process invoices manually. Moving to the pure data end of the spectrum, companies that convert scanned documents into usable data (through optical character recognition or similar technologies), report a 26% faster processing time than those that work only with document images.

Figure 3: Methods for Handling Incoming Invoices

63%

50%

25%

9%

8%

35%

15%

16%

15%

12%

25%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Small Businesses

Midsize Businesses

Large Enterprises


Manual Back-end document captureFront-end document capture Front-end data capture

63%

50%

25%

9%

8%

35%

15%

16%

15%

12%

25%

25%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Small Businesses

Midsize Businesses

Large Enterprises


Manual Back-end document captureFront-end document capture Front-end data capture

Source: Aberdeen Group, April 2010

“We are looking to get approval for funds to buy an AP automation solution: upfront scanning, routing for approval via workflow and on-line approval and payment. We are also looking at supplier portal and dynamic discounting capabilities.”

~ Marie-France Poulaert, Manager Accounts Payable,

Canadian Pacific

After following the approval workflow - identifying the associated purchase order(s), confirming receipt of goods or services, verifying pricing, quantities, and terms, etc. - the invoice is approved for payment. Of course, the cycle time impact of workflow automation should not be overlooked. Responding companies that had automated the entire receipt through workflow process were able to advance to settlement nearly seven days sooner than those with incomplete or no automation (12 days vs. 18.9, a 37% advantage). The procedures and policies governing this portion of the process are discussed in more detail in Chapter Two.

Paying It Forward In a pattern similar to the examination of invoice processing above, Figure 4 illustrates a more highly paper-based portfolio of payment types for small and midsize businesses than for large enterprises. It is interesting to note that the main areas of differentiation between small and midsize businesses and large enterprises is in the balance between check and ACH-based


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



payments. Overall usage of commercial cards, wire transfers, and other miscellaneous payment methods is quite similar for all groups. This distribution of payment types also brings up an important note: although small businesses cited the growing risk of payments fraud as a top pressure more than twice as often as those in the other revenue groups (35% vs. 16%), they also show the highest utilization rate of paper checks - the payment type most often associated with fraud in Aberdeen's May Global Payments benchmark. While recognition alone will not remedy the situation, this should highlight that the selection (or enablement) of certain payment types can have added benefits above and beyond faster processing times.

Figure 4: Overall Payments Mix by Revenue Group

46%

42%

30%

17%

18%

28%

12%

11%

12%

15%

21%

21%

10%

9%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Small Businesses

Midsize Businesses

Large Enterprises

Percentage of Total Payments

Checks ACH Commercial cards Wire transfer Other

46%

42%

30%

17%

18%

28%

12%

11%

12%

15%

21%

21%

10%

9%

8%

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100%

Small Businesses

Midsize Businesses

Large Enterprises

Percentage of Total Payments

Checks ACH Commercial cards Wire transfer Other

Source: Aberdeen Group, May 2010

Building on the discussion above, the choice of payment type affects not only fraud potential and processing time, but when combined with type-specific transaction fees, can lead to a significant difference in total transaction costs. As shown in Table 2, below, the high cost of processing paper checks is reason enough to seek a transition to electronic payment methods. Accepting those costs while also being subject to increased fraud risk can truly be a lose-lose situation. Of course, this does not imply that the implementation costs of alternative methods are trivial -- but it should highlight the need to investigate the Return on Investment (ROI) case for electronic payments, based on the business' total payments volume and current processing costs.

Table 2: Average Transaction Cost by Payment Type

Payment Method Cost Per Transaction Paper Paper Checks $7.15

ACH $4.72


Commercial Cards $3.96 Electronic Wire Transfer $9.86


Not for

Dist

ributi

on

http://www.aberdeen.com/Aberdeen-Library/6594/RA-global-electronic-payments.aspx




First Things First Where, then, should an interested accounts payable professional look? Sharing the insight of Michael Puskarich, CFO of Visiting Nurse Service, Inc., it is critical to focus on your internal processes. "You must have your processes straight first – before you can get others to adapt to you, you have to make sure your processes are efficient. If you ask a vendor to give you better terms and then your internal process delay things, you are left with no room to negotiate in the future. If you streamline your processes first and then ask for any changes, your process changes may exaggerate the effects of the changes you just negotiated. Even if you cannot get the changes you wish, your process enhancements may yield a much better longer term effect." Chapter Two will provide a good discussion of what to keep in mind when evaluating the current state of existing accounts payable policies, procedures, and processes.

Aberdeen Insight - The Proper Role of Accounts Payable

Accounts payable is purely tactical, or so the traditional view holds. Its job is simply to pay for purchases made by those in other departments to support those activities that contribute to the business' top line. Were this only a straw man argument, there would be no harm done. Unfortunately, just as in some executives' view, procurement can be whittled down to the department that merely facilitates the acquisition of goods needed by truly productive functions, so too is APs contribution overlooked and its potential untapped. But this can change.

How, then, should A/P be viewed in the greater enterprise? What can it bring to the table, aside from receiving bills and printing checks? To provide a brief summary, here is a short list of A/P goals whose impact can be lost when looking only at entry lines on a P&L statement:

• Paying suppliers on-time. Alongside disreputable negotiation tactics, is there anything as damaging to supplier relationship management efforts as delay (or complete failure) in making payments? Lateness in one contract cycle may lead to more onerous terms in the next - if the relationship continues at all. To put this in perspective: if a key supplier conducts its own customer analysis, which side of an 80/20 decision would you like to end up on?

continued

“In my opinion, the best starting points for improving accounts payable process are invoice scanning, approval routing, and electronic filing.”

~ James White, Accounts Payable Manager, Cole Hersee

Company


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Aberdeen Insight - The Proper Role of Accounts Payable

• Keeping everyone up-to-date. Just as suppliers benefit from timely responses to invoice and payment status inquiries, so too with internal colleagues in Finance and Treasury who can more intelligently make decisions based upon current and expected cash outflows from A/P. Without adequate communication, the business loses its ability to control its payment schedule and to make informed decisions regarding priority, timing, and alternative uses for existing funds.

• Avoiding late payment penalties. In addition to damaging supplier relationships, late payments can also shackle the business with added costs. Timely processing in the A/P department can help to mitigate delays caused elsewhere in the organization (during approval in the procurement department, for example). Not everything is within A/P's control, but lower task times by one group can add some slack to the overall process and help to stay within negotiated timelines for payment.

• Capturing early payment discounts. This is, of course, just the other side of the penalty-avoidance coin. In this case, however, adding slack is not the goal. In order to achieve the short turnaround required to hit the discount date (10 to 15 days, in standard terms) all stages of the receipt-to-payment process must operate efficiently. In organizations with heightened visibility and effective supplier communications, savings can be further improved with the utilization of dynamic discounting, where the buyer and supplier negotiate new payment terms mid-cycle, instead of being tied to the existing contract.

Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Chapter Two: Taking a Closer Look

The performance differences between revenue groups - and between those groups and Aberdeen's Best-in-Class performers in recent studies - are the result of not only those high-level attributes discussed in Chapter One, but also of the specific capabilities and technology choices of the individual firms. These differences will be discussed to follow, following a brief examination of one specific company that shared its own experiences implementing A/P automation.

Case Study — Imaging Brings Enhanced Visibility and Increased Financial Control to Loomis Sayles & Company

Loomis Sayles & Company LP is a financial investment company based in Boston, MA. Serving the investment needs of institutional and mutual fund clients since 1926, it is one of the oldest financial services firms with equity and fixed income assets of more than $140 billion. The Vice President and Accounting Supervisor of Loomis Sayles, Daniel Garuti’s role encompasses the entire accounts payable process including Travel & Expense (T&E), as well as cash management. Like many Accounts Payable (A/P) functions, Garuti faced a bottleneck of paper and coordination.

Looking to improve visibility and control, the Vice President began to look more closely at its processes. He explains, “Part of the issue for us was delayed payments and accountability. Trying to figure out where the breakdowns were. Everyone was pointing the finger at Finance. The approval chain was archaic. Invoices were received by different divisions. With some people in the Boston office, the manager for approval based in San Francisco, an invoice took three or four days in transit before returning back to Boston, if acted on immediately. Compounding matters, a couple of departments were delinquent in getting invoices in. We were also looking to be a little more greener, not produce as much paper, and thought imaging and workflow would help with that aspect.”

With those goals in mind, Garuti evaluated several systems of automated invoice and workflow process, “One was a partner with our ERP, another company we knew of, and then we brought in our current provider because we found it to provide the only accounting system with imaging capabilities at the time.” He asks poignantly, “Do you want an imaging tool or financial tracking that you can do imaging?”

Loomis Sayles signed on with their technology solution provider in late 2005 and the implementation was completed in 2006. “We were upgrading our ERP system, so they had a short window of eight weeks to go live. They were able to send a live invoice in five days, and after some initial testing, we were ready to go live in six weeks.”

continued

Fast Facts

√ Paper invoices account for 83% of all invoices

√ Firms with clear policies in place are more likely to achieve payment process times 42% quicker than others

√ 28% of corporations have a fully automated Procure-to-Pay or A/P automation


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Case Study — Imaging Brings Enhanced Visibility and Increased Financial Control to Loomis Sayles & Company

With automation, Loomis Sayles was able to gain visibility, reign in late payments and create further efficiencies. Garuti focused on the different points in the invoice-to-payment process. One approach was to identify the vendors for which billing could be consolidated to reduce the number of paper-based invoices into the company. Some suppliers generated invoices daily. Loomis Sayles had them change the frequency to weekly, and for those that were currently invoicing weekly, they requested to change to a monthly basis, among other adjustments. Garuti recommends, “By breaking it down, invoice-to-scan shows what’s wrong with your process and your vendor’s process. Look at your own process first, but don’t negate the fact that your vendors could be causing some of the issues.”

The next strategy was to examine the cycle time from statement date, Garuti explains, “From when invoices were cut to actually scanned into the system, there were big gaps. And from once scanned, the time from scanned to when paid, the process was even longer. We could track the full length of the invoice where invoices stood still for seven or more days. For instance, we found that people were on vacation.” Now the system generates email notifications prompting reviewers into action and Loomis Sayles & Company instituted back-up procedures to escalate review and approval, cutting down the process time. According to Garuti, “By gauging the middle surrounding areas, we also found out who were our ‘bad people.’ The system enabled us to validate what were already aware of, and we started showing reports to all the departments to bring it to their attention.”

With the imaging software, Loomis Sayles & Company was able to realize significant improvements, reducing its invoice-to-pay cycle from 40 days to 15, while enhancing supplier relationships, “Our policy is invoice in, invoice out. We want to get payments out quickly, and keep our vendors happy. If we can pay more quickly, they will be a better partner to us.” Loomis Sayles & Company is also now able to capture early payment discounts previously hampered by the manual labor-intensive processes.

The value delivered with imaging further created efficiencies and reduced redundancy enabling staff to focus on critical work. “I have been able to reallocate 30% of my main A/P time to other functions. My senior A/P person is doing fixed assets for me two days a week, 50% T&E, and the rest of the time is spent doing reporting and special projects. We didn’t want to reduce people, but we were looking to add somebody prior to implementation. With an automated system one can easily double volume and not affect staff because of the efficiency.” Automation is now enabling the A/P staff of Loomis Sayles & Company to provide timely, reliable information on the performance of the company, while also realizing green benefits.

Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Comparative Assessment Aberdeen Group segmented the response base into three groups, based on annual revenues (as illustrated in Table 1). In addition to having common revenue levels, each group also shared characteristics in five key categories: (1) process (the approaches they take to execute daily operations); (2) organization (corporate focus and collaboration among stakeholders); (3) knowledge management (contextualizing data and exposing it to key stakeholders); (4) technology (the selection of the appropriate tools and the effective deployment of those tools); and (5) performance management (the ability of the organization to measure its results to improve its business). These characteristics (identified in Table 3) serve as a guideline for understanding the performance achievements and ongoing challenges for these different classes of enterprises.

Table 3: A Comparative Framework

“Look at manual processes to eliminate non-value added or duplicate tasks; automate where possible.”

~ Kathy Tanner, Manager, Amylin Pharmaceuticals Inc.

Small Midsize Large Best-in-Class

Standardized payment processes across the organization 51% 60% 41% 60%

Clear policies for invoice receipt-to-payment workflow Process

18% 35% 51% 59% Current A/P improvement initiative in place

45% 45% 66% 72% Centralized data capture operations

27% 33% 48% 42% Electronic payment requirements established as a standard means of conducting business with key suppliers

Organization

25% 34% 39% 45% Enterprise-level visibility into A/P (invoice receipt and workflow) processes Knowledge

21% 41% 48% 48% Payment system integration with ERP or other financial enterprise application

25% 55% 67% 47% Alerts to notify managers of payments initiated above a threshold amount that should warrant management attention

23% 33% 49% 30% System-level controls for segregation of duties for each transaction

Technology

18% 35% 53% 54% Ability to measure invoice receipt-to-payment cycle time

14% 30% 29% 41% Well defined metrics, incentives, and penalties applied to payments

Performance


13% 23% 37% 31%

Sources: Aberdeen Group, Invoicing and Workflow (April 2010) and Global Payments (May 2010)

Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Capabilities and Enablers Aberdeen's analysis of this Comparative Framework reveals that large enterprises display greater capability across multiple areas, though their average performance is not substantially superior to their small and mid-size peers. The sections that follow examine these areas of difference, and offer an additional comparison with those companies that achieved Best-in-Class status in this year's two previous Aberdeen payables studies.

Process Accounts payable is a complex function, with a host of rules (both internally conceived and externally imposed) impacting the day-to-day conduct of business. Owing to this complexity, there are two attributes of successful A/P organizations that stand out in Aberdeen's recent payables research: clarity and standardization of A/P processes. Clarity can take the form of a detailed and well-organized playbook, setting out the proper methods for handling incoming invoices of differing formats, procedures for matching invoices with existing purchase orders (if matching is not automated by a solution), and setting out controls such as dollar value-based approval limits and individual duties relative to vendor information management, check printing, etc. This capability, in place in 60% of Best-in-Class firms, is not only helpful in day-to-day operations, but can further support efforts to standardize processes between separate locations or business units by providing a comprehensive reference for training purposes.

Improvement of accounts payable must begin with, “Centralization of data, core process development, establishment of standards, and enablement of users.”

~ James de Vries, Director, CH Robinson Worldwide

Organization The changes required to improve A/P performance (altering how incoming invoices are processes, migrating to electronic payments, etc.) do not come about by happenstance. To that end, 72% of Best-in-Class performers reported having an active A/P improvement initiative in place - and half of those companies have had such a program for two years or more. Similar to Peter Drucker's counsel that management requires measurement, when it comes to accounts payable, improvement necessitates involvement. This encompasses both a commitment by the organization as well as the support of upper management - a trait Best-in-Class firms are 44% more likely to possess than their lower-performing peers.

Knowledge Management Suppliers need invoice and payment status information, finance needs to know what outflows will affect the company's cash position, and A/P managers benefit from identifying bottlenecks (whether process- or people-related) slowing down the payables process. Enterprise-level visibility into the A/P process is what can allow the organization to satisfy the needs of these stakeholders. Even in larger enterprises, which are on par with the Best-in-Class (48% report having this capability), there is still much room for improvement. It is no surprise that small businesses - those most likely to manually process invoices and pay with paper checks - are also the least likely to report this level of visibility (21% overall). While their transaction

“In the near-term, we’re focusing on electronic invoicing and automation of payments reconciliation. The current problem we face is overcoming incorrect (or missing) payment reference information preventing an automatic match.”

~ Faye Wright, Director, VETT Ltd.


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



volumes may be lower, and organizational structure less complex, the interest of internal and external parties in gaining a clear understanding of A/P status is no less important.

Case Study — Advent of A/P Automation at Johns Manville

For Johns Manville, a Colorado-based building materials manufacturer acquired by Berkshire Hathaway in 2001, accounts payable is an area poised for improvement. With an average processing volume of 10,000 invoices per month—higher during the summer due to seasonality—manual processes hindered performance.

According to Ed Ermak, Business Process Specialist for JM, their legacy system was the culprit; “Whenever we can’t pay an invoice, either because we don’t have the PO or there is a price difference between the receipt and invoice, our A/P people had to make a copy of the invoice and email it off to someone else to find out what information is correct.” Successful discrepancy resolution caused large amounts of rework, and often required multiple iterations before completion. With so many copies already being made for exceptions, this led Ermak to ask an important question; “If we are already making copies for the exceptions, why not do this for the entire invoice process and reap savings by not having to file any paper at all?” As an added benefit, if questions about an invoice ever arose, there would already be a document image in the system associated with the transaction.

Already in the midst of an implementation of an ERP system that would handle the workflow functionality, JM chose to add on an external imaging solution which would capture invoices on the front-end and feed into the central system. At the outset, JM’s focus was on creating document images, rather than pursuing full digitization of invoice information through OCR. They took a measured approach of utilizing the imaging software to speed up manual keying of entries. At present, the software picks up approximately 86% of invoice information, leaving only 14% to be entered by clicking and selecting data on the invoice image (which is a bit more efficient than keying by hand). With a centralized A/P department, JM is reaping further efficiencies.

continued

Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Case Study — Advent of A/P Automation at Johns Manville

After an initial test, Ermak says, they found that half of their invoices could pass through the imaging system and either post to the ERP or be parked for workflow. The other half, representing invoices that lacked some required information, still require intervention to remedy omissions, such as those with missing PO numbers or PO line-items. Looking ahead, they expect to boost the data capture up over 90%, and to improve the non-exceptions to 70% to 75%. Focusing less on error-handling will allow for more staff time dedicated to performance monitoring and process improvement. A successful imaging program on the payments side may even support future expansion of the technology to the receivables arena, streamlining the process by intercepting customer orders and facilitating ERP integration for those volumes as well.

Technology Previous sections have all touched on technological choices implicitly: in discussing the various formats used for invoice submission, electronic conversion of paper documents, automation of approval workflow, and systems integration between receipt, approval, payments and underlying financial systems. As illustrated in Figure 5, there are many other technologies that support these processes as well. Once digitized, what becomes of the newly created invoice image? It can be forwarded as an email attachment, associated with a transaction in the ERP system, or otherwise stored and indexed for future use - as is done by 52% of Best-in-Class companies.

If imaging is the starting point, and data is the goal, how do companies make that leap? One example is Optical Character Recognition, which can identify typed characters on an invoice (or other document) image and convert that to usable data. Further still, Intelligent Character Recognition (ICR) can extend this capability to images of hand-written documents. The specific terminology used for competing solutions may vary between vendors, but the important point is that these types of applications provide companies with the benefit of electronic invoices without requiring technological change on the part of their suppliers.

“We are automated, and receive electronic invoices through XML. We are looking to Vendor Self Service to eliminate the balance of the paper invoices.”

~ Robin Lee, Executive Director, Finance and

Administration, Baylor College of Medicine

Lastly, Best-in-Class companies make use of two technologies that bridge the gap with the stakeholders in procurement: spend analytics and contract repositories. Especially in companies where the majority of purchase orders are paper-based, data gathered by the accounts payable group may be the best available window into overall spend (useful information for supplier rationalization efforts, as discussed in the end-of-chapter Insight). For the A/P department itself, this information can lay the foundation for identifying savings opportunities by altering the mix of payment methods. Contract repositories offer an electronic means of storing and accessing the documents governing existing business agreements. Why is this important in accounts payable? Electronic comparison of invoiced pricing to governing


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



contracts can identify inconsistencies - and help to ensure that the discounts negotiated by those in procurement survive to aid in maximizing the company's bottom line.

Figure 5: Current Adoption of Supporting Technologies

52%

42%36%

24% 21%14%18%

18%

11%7%

24%20%

24%

13%9%

47%

35% 36%

29%23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Enterprise ImageRepository

Spend Analytics(for invoices)

ContractRepository

DigitalSignatures

OpticalCharacter

Recognition(OCR)

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts, n

= 1

52 Best-in-Class Small Midsize Large52%

42%36%

24% 21%14%18%

18%

11%7%

24%20%

24%

13%9%

47%

35% 36%

29%23%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

Enterprise ImageRepository

Spend Analytics(for invoices)

ContractRepository

DigitalSignatures

OpticalCharacter

Recognition(OCR)

Per

cent

age

of R

espo

nden

ts, n

= 1

52 Best-in-Class Small Midsize Large


Performance As previously mentioned, measurement is the key to management when it comes to performance. In this regard, Accounts Payable is a difficult function to manage effectively. Only 41% of Best-in-Class companies are able to measure the cycle time of the full A/P process, from invoice receipt through payment. The news is not all bad, however. When the process is separated into receipt and approval on one side, and settlement on the other, the results are more encouraging. Ninety-one percent (91%) of responding companies measure their receipt and approval time, and 94% report measuring the payment portion of the process. Cost measures are somewhat more difficult to come by: 18% do not measure cost during initial receipt and processing, while 13% report that their companies do not measure the cost of settlement.

This lack of visibility into departmental performance should serve as a call to action for companies of all sizes. While the measures themselves do not need to be laboriously computed, some effort should be made to run through, at very least, the simplest calculations: A/P overhead divided by the number of invoices processed for cost; payment date minus stated invoice date for cycle time (or, as an even more obtainable measure, system payment entry date minus system PO-creation date). Sophistication and precision can come later, as documents become digitized, data becomes more easily accessible, and implemented solutions handle the analysis. Despite this future potential, what cannot be understated is the present-day importance of taking the initial readings, to lay the groundwork for gauging potential improvement options moving forward.

"[In the next six to 12 months our company will focus on] Assessment of processes and documentation of controls for improvement and audit.”

~ Mark Sybouts, Business Manager, Neah-Kah-Nie School

District 56


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Aberdeen Insight - Market Power and E-Payables Options

Transitioning away from paper checks is certainly a goal easier stated than achieved. The same can be said of transitioning suppliers away from paper invoices towards electronic methods. However, with an informed strategy for supplier engagement, businesses can spend their time wisely, by selectively approaching those business partners most likely to agree to a change. As was previously illustrated in Table 2, sizeable gains can be made by switching from paper checks to ACH (for typical PO-based purchases) or Purchasing/Commercial Cards (for lower value items). The benefits of invoice automation have been discussed previously as well. The next step is determining where to focus in order to achieve the greatest gain.

For the purposes of this Insight, the argument is simple: focus on those suppliers for whom your deal size, frequency, and reliability are important. This may seem like a truism, but make note of a potential negative impact of success in a related business area: "successful" supplier rationalization in Procurement can lead to the usage of a lower number of suppliers, with whom volumes have been aggregated in order to secure more favorable discounts on purchases. What is lost in this analysis is how this consolidation affects your negotiating power with your base. Moving from using two separate, mid-tier suppliers at $50k each, to one top-tier supplier for the entire $100k spend may indeed secure a better discount. But if your company is now a small fish in a big pond (rather than the reverse when working with smaller outfits), you may find your ability to dictate invoice or payment methods quite constrained.

Table 4 presents the percentages of suppliers in each category with which respondents use the stated payment types. The trends are fairly easy to identify: midsize and large firms are better able to transition away from paper checks when dealing with their major suppliers; usage of wire transfers does not appear to be a function of supplier importance (and is possibly better equated with the requirements of speed or international payment), and; companies of all sizes have been successful in handling payments to non-core suppliers via commercial cards, with midsize respondents leading the way.

continued

Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Aberdeen Insight - Market Power and E-Payables Options

Table 4: Payment Methods Used by Supplier Type*

Major Suppliers Other Suppliers

Small Midsize Large Small Midsize Large

Paper Checks 74% 72% 59% 74% 83% 77%

ACH 32% 42% 56% 19% 31% 28%

Wire Transfers 42% 51% 64% 44% 48% 59%

Commercial Cards 16% 26% 15% 26% 40% 26%

* These figures represent the percentage of companies that utilize each payment for the given supplier types. They do not reflect the percentage of total payments made using each type.


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Chapter Three: Required Actions

Fast Facts

√ The Best-in-Class receive electronic invoices 83% more often

√ Best-in-Class firms are 186% more likely to employ dynamic discounting to achieve cost savings

√ 44% of firms have cross-functional coordination of payments management between procurement, finance

Capturing efficiency gains and improving visibility through process improvement and payments automation are important goals for the modern accounts payable organization. The recommendations to follow provide potential starting points for companies of differing sizes and levels of process and technological maturity.

Small Business Steps to Success • Craft clear policies governing the entire payables process.

Focusing on performance, companies with clear policies in place report invoice processing times 42% faster than their peers. These gains extend to exception handling as well, where they reported a 44% differential. Beyond performance, such clarity can ease the process of standardization, where policies are extended to additional business units. While this scenario may occur more often in larger enterprises, these benefits are also available to small businesses in the context of employee succession/replacement, where the quality of documentation can facilitate effective on-boarding.

• Segment your suppliers to prioritize efforts to increase electronic invoices and electronic payments. As discussed in Chapter Two, negotiating power can be a limiting factor in what options businesses can pursue in the payables arena. By analyzing spend data, small businesses can identify the best candidates for paper-to-electronic conversion and focus resources on enabling those suppliers. The benefits can be quite impressive: for recent respondents, ACH payments provided a 34% cost savings over paper checks while P-Card transactions were 45% less costly.

Midsize Business Steps to Success • Implement system-level controls for segregation of duties.

Midsize businesses are lagging behind Best-in-Class companies when it comes to internal controls, as they are 35% less likely to report having this capability in place. This can breed disaster. Aberdeen's May global payments study found that of those companies experiencing some degree of fraud, and those without tight internal payment controls were 39% more likely to have been victimized by an internal party (i.e. a current or former employee). But midsize companies should not focus only on this increased risk exposure - for the more than one-quarter of midsize respondents that are publicly traded (or those contemplating going public) effective controls are governmentally mandated by the Sarbanes-Oxley Act.

• Evaluate the centralization of data capture. As volumes and geographic dispersion grows, so too does the need to examine


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



centralization of common business functions. This may be done internally, through a shared service center, or externally via Business Process Outsourcing (BPO). One natural A/P candidate is data capture, which midsize companies are 26% less likely to centralize than the Best-in-Class. This approach, gathering incoming invoices from disparate locations into a single point of input, goes hand-in-hand with ERP or financial systems integration. By reducing the number of different sources of input, companies can also reduce the number of systems connections necessary to integrate payables information into related systems for handling workflow, ledger updates, and status inquiries.

Large Enterprise Steps to Success

A critical element in improving accounts payable is, “Electronic documentation and paperless payment processes.”

~ Larry Albright, Controller, K&L Microwave

• Standardize payments processes across business units and locations. As businesses grow (either organically or through acquisition), so too can their geographic footprint. Large companies in Aberdeen's April payables study reported receiving invoices at an average of nearly 26 different offices or locations. However, less than half of these businesses have standardized payables processes across those locations. This can have an impact on enterprise visibility into payables performance. Businesses with standardized processes are more than twice as likely as others to report having 'good' or 'real-time' visibility into accounts payable operations and processes (70% vs. 35%).

• Focus on integration of receipt, workflow, and payments with underlying ERP and financial applications. Enterprises with the largest volume of invoices and payments to process also have the ability to capture the greatest absolute gains--which lie at the heart of a persuasive business case. The goal with complete automation and integration is the ability to manage by exception, enable straight-through processing (i.e. no manual intervention required), and realize the full potential of the available accounts payable technology. Those steps in the A/P process that are the most manually intensive (indexing, matching invoices to POs, and payments to invoices) all share a common attribute: they are information-intensive endeavors requiring comparison and evaluation of numerous records - exactly the sort of rote exercise that computers handle exponentially better than their human counterparts.


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Accounts Payable Automation Recap

Cost savings. Cost avoidance. Supplier relationships. Financial control. These are the avenues through which Accounts Payable can provide value to the greater organization. Not only are they important to the bottom line for their ability to minimize those P&L entries that degrade profits, but they carry with them the benefits of financial flexibility and positive supplier relations that can set the stage for revenue improvements as well. What, then, is required to take advantage of the opportunities that efficient accounts payable operations offer? Two attributes are fundamental: processing speed and information visibility.

Though they may at first appear so, these necessities are not strictly within the province of technology. Well-detailed and regularly-enforced procurement and invoicing policies are where the game begins. Maximizing PO-based spend, and ensuring that all required information is provided to suppliers during the purchasing phase will enable them to reciprocate - responding with invoices properly referencing purchase orders. References facilitate comparison, and comparison allows for managing the front-end of the payables process by exception, rather than en masse. It is the ability to manage by exception that truly facilitates efficient invoice processing and payment disbursement.

Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Appendix A: Research Methodology

Between March and May 2010, Aberdeen surveyed finance professionals in to identify their accounts payable including payments practices.

The online survey was supplemented with interviews with select survey respondents, gathering additional information on A/P strategies, experiences, and results.

The research sample included respondents from two separate surveys that looked at invoice receipt and workflow and payments processes with the following demographic information.

Table 5: Study Demographic Information

Invoice Receipt and Workflow Global Payments

Job title

C-Level Executive / President (14%) GM / EVP / SVP / VP (14%) Director (20%) Manager (31%) Other (21%).

C-Level (35%) Managing Director / Principle (5%) EVP / SVP / VP /GM (2%) Controller (19%) Treasurer / Assistant Treasurer (4%) Director (11%) Manager (13%) Other Staff (10%) 1% no response

Industry

Software (10%) Financial services (10%) Insurance (6%) Retail (5%) Food and beverage (5%) Government / public sector (5%) Health / medical / dental services (5%) Automotive (4%)

Financial services (13%) Education (9%) IT consulting / services (8%) Consumer goods (6%) Industrial product and equipment (6%) Healthcare (8%) Software (6%) Wholesale / distribution (5%)

Geography: Company

headquarters of responding

companies were located in

North America (72%) Europe (18%) Asia-Pacific region (7%) Middle East / Africa (3%).

North America (76%) Europe (10%) Asia / Pacific (9%) Middle East and Africa (4%) South / Central America and Caribbean (1%).

Study Focus

Responding finance executives completed an online survey that included questions designed to determine the following:

√ The degree to which automation technologies are deployed in their accounts payable departments and the financial implications of the technology

√ The structure and effectiveness of existing A/P implementations

√ Current and planned use of supporting technologies to improve A/P activities

√ The benefits, if any, that have been derived from A/P improvement initiatives

The study aimed to identify emerging best practices for A/P automation usage, and to provide a framework by which readers could assess their own management capabilities.


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Invoice Receipt and Workflow Global Payments

Company size

42% of respondents were from large enterprises (annual revenues above US $1 billion) 35% were from midsize enterprises (annual revenues between $50 million and $1 billion); 23% of respondents were from small businesses (annual revenues of $50 million or less).

35% of respondents were from large enterprises (annual revenues above US $1 billion) 40% were from midsize enterprises (annual revenues between $50 million and $1 billion) 25% of respondents were from small businesses (annual revenues of $50 million or less)

Headcount

64% of respondents were from large enterprises (headcount greater than 1,000 employees) 20% were from midsize enterprises (headcount between 100 and 999 employees)

41% of respondents were from large enterprises (headcount greater than 1,000 employees) 37% were from midsize enterprises (headcount between 100 and 999 employees) 21% of respondents were from small businesses (headcount between 1 and 99 employees)

16% of respondents were from small businesses (headcount between 1 and 99 employees)

1% no response

Table 6: The PACE Framework Key

Overview Aberdeen applies a methodology to benchmark research that evaluates the business pressures, actions, capabilities, and enablers (PACE) that indicate corporate behavior in specific business processes. These terms are defined as follows: Pressures — external forces that impact an organization’s market position, competitiveness, or business operations (e.g., economic, political and regulatory, technology, changing customer preferences, competitive) Actions — the strategic approaches that an organization takes in response to industry pressures (e.g., align the corporate business model to leverage industry opportunities, such as product / service strategy, target markets, financial strategy, go-to-market, and sales strategy) Capabilities — the business process competencies required to execute corporate strategy (e.g., skilled people, brand, market positioning, viable products / services, ecosystem partners, financing) Enablers — the key functionality of technology solutions required to support the organization’s enabling business practices (e.g., development platform, applications, network connectivity, user interface, training and support, partner interfaces, data cleansing, and management)



Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Table 7: The Competitive Framework Key

Overview The Aberdeen Competitive Framework defines enterprises as falling into one of the following three levels of practices and performance: Best-in-Class (20%) — Practices that are the best currently being employed and are significantly superior to the Industry Average, and result in the top industry performance. Industry Average (50%) — Practices that represent the average or norm, and result in average industry performance. Laggards (30%) — Practices that are significantly behind the average of the industry, and result in below average performance

In the following categories: Process — What is the scope of process standardization? What is the efficiency and effectiveness of this process? Organization — How is your company currently organized to manage and optimize this particular process? Knowledge — What visibility do you have into key data and intelligence required to manage this process? Technology — What level of automation have you used to support this process? How is this automation integrated and aligned? Performance — What do you measure? How frequently? What’s your actual performance?


Table 8: The Relationship Between PACE and the Competitive Framework

PACE and the Competitive Framework – How They Interact Aberdeen research indicates that companies that identify the most influential pressures and take the most transformational and effective actions are most likely to achieve superior performance. The level of competitive performance that a company achieves is strongly determined by the PACE choices that they make and how well they execute those decisions.


Not for

Dist

ributi

on



Appendix B: Related Aberdeen Research

Related Aberdeen research that forms a companion or reference to this report includes:

• Global Payments: Maximizing Cash Flow with Electronic Payments and Process Automation; May, 2010

• Invoicing and Workflow: Transforming Process Automation into Operation Cost Control; April, 2010

• The 3-Part Balancing Act of Cash Management: Optimizing the Financial Value Chain; December, 2009

• Selecting the Right Payment Solutions Mix: Optimizing for Success; October, 2009

• E-Payables Benchmark: Accounts Payable Rising; September, 2009

• The E-Payables Benchmark Series: Electronic Payments Reduce Your Payment Processing Costs; July, 2009

• The CFO's View of Accounts Payable: Cash is King; February, 2009

• The E-Payables Benchmark Series: Electronic Payments and Fraud Prevention; June, 2008

• The Order-to-Cash Cycle: Integrating Business Processes to Improve Operational Performance; March 2008

Information on these and any other Aberdeen publications can be found at www.aberdeen.com.

Authors: Scott Pezza, Senior Research Associate, Global Supply Management ([email protected]); William Jan, Senior Research Analyst, Finance and GRC ([email protected])

Since 1988, Aberdeen's research has been helping corporations worldwide become Best-in-Class. Having benchmarked the performance of more than 644,000 companies, Aberdeen is uniquely positioned to provide organizations with the facts that matter — the facts that enable companies to get ahead and drive results. That's why our research is relied on by more than 2.2 million readers in over 40 countries, 90% of the Fortune 1,000, and 93% of the Technology 500.

As a Harte-Hanks Company, Aberdeen plays a key role of putting content in context for the global direct and targeted marketing company. Aberdeen's analytical and independent view of the "customer optimization" process of Harte-Hanks (Information – Opportunity – Insight – Engagement – Interaction) extends the client value and accentuates the strategic role Harte-Hanks brings to the market. For additional information, visit Aberdeen http://www.aberdeen.com or call (617) 723-7890, or to learn more about Harte-Hanks, call (800) 456-9748 or go to http://www.harte-hanks.com.

This document is the result of primary research performed by Aberdeen Group. Aberdeen Group's methodologies provide for objective fact-based research and represent the best analysis available at the time of publication. Unless otherwise noted, the entire contents of this publication are copyrighted by Aberdeen Group, Inc. and may not be reproduced, distributed, archived, or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written consent by Aberdeen Group, Inc. (071309b)

Not for

Dist

ributi

on





http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/6279-RA-cash-management-forecast.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/6279-RA-cash-management-forecast.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/aberdeen-library/6308/RB-electronic-payment-automation.aspx

http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/6015-RA-accounts-payable-invoice.asp



http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/5808-RA-accounts-payable-procurement.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/4899-RA-epayables-benchmark-series.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/4899-RA-epayables-benchmark-series.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/4671-RA-order-to-cash.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/summary/report/benchmark/4671-RA-order-to-cash.asp

http://www.aberdeen.com/

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.aberdeen.com/

http://www.harte-hanks.com/



Featured Underwriters This research report was made possible, in part, with the financial support of our underwriters. These individuals and organizations share Aberdeen’s vision of bringing fact based research to corporations worldwide at little or no cost. Underwriters have no editorial or research rights, and the facts and analysis of this report remain an exclusive production and product of Aberdeen Group. Solution providers recognized as underwriters were solicited after the fact and had no substantive influence on the direction of this report. Their sponsorship has made it possible for Aberdeen Group to make these findings available to readers at no charge.

MetaViewer ePayables from Metafile provides the industry’s most comprehensive Paperless AP automation solution available from a single source.

With the addition of their new powerful capture solution, MetaViewer Invoice Accelleratortm, MetaViewer can now efficiently identify incoming emailed, electronic and scanned paper documents. The Accelerator accurately extracts both invoice information and line item detail, matches it against the PO and receiver and automatically routes it for exception handling and approval according to your business rules. All this at a fraction of the cost of third party OCR products.

For additional information on Metafile:

Metafile, Inc.

2900 43rd St. NW

Rochester, MN 55901

Telephone: 507.286.9232

[email protected]

www.metaviewer.com


Not for

Dist

ributi

on


http://www.metaviewer.com/



As the world's leading provider of business software, SAP delivers products and services that help accelerate business innovation for our customers. Today, more than 47,800 customers in more than 120 countries run SAP applications – from distinct solutions addressing the needs of small businesses and midsize companies to suite offerings for global organizations. Founded in 1972, SAP has a rich history of innovation and growth that has made us a true industry leader. SAP currently employs more than 51,200 people in more than 50 countries worldwide.

For additional information on SAP:

SAP Americas

3999 West Chester Pike

Newtown Square, PA 19073

Telephone: 888.597.1727

www.SAP.com

www.sap.com/solutions


Not for

Dist

ributi

on

http://www.sap.com/

www.sap.com/solutions

Documents

E Payables Aberdeen Report Aug 2010