<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: ePayables Primer (6) – The Summary	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://cporising.com/2010/08/31/epayables-primer-6-the-summary/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://cporising.com/2010/08/31/epayables-primer-6-the-summary/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=epayables-primer-6-the-summary</link>
	<description>Analyst-led research and intelligence for the procurement community.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Sat, 13 Jul 2024 01:06:49 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Andrew Bartolini		</title>
		<link>https://cporising.com/2010/08/31/epayables-primer-6-the-summary/comment-page-1/#comment-111</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Andrew Bartolini]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 13:45:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cporising.com/?p=2328#comment-111</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Jon -

Thanks for the comment and great to hear from you. I think you make a couple great points. (1) Measuring the cost per invoice can be a huge challenge; and as you point out, the value in using it for the business case is to understand the potential efficiency gains for a specific department. (2) AP departments need to focus on quality (or what I refer to as accuracy) and seek to improve it since it can be a huge cost driver.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Jon &#8211;</p>
<p>Thanks for the comment and great to hear from you. I think you make a couple great points. (1) Measuring the cost per invoice can be a huge challenge; and as you point out, the value in using it for the business case is to understand the potential efficiency gains for a specific department. (2) AP departments need to focus on quality (or what I refer to as accuracy) and seek to improve it since it can be a huge cost driver.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Jon Casher		</title>
		<link>https://cporising.com/2010/08/31/epayables-primer-6-the-summary/comment-page-1/#comment-109</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jon Casher]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 23 Sep 2010 01:48:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://cporising.com/?p=2328#comment-109</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[Cost per invoice is a useful metric if you see how it changes within your own organization. Trying to use it to benchmark against others is a waste of time. No two companies include the same components in their calculations and there are even differences in how they define invoice!

The most important metric for AP is measuring input quality.  If input quality improves, AP productivity increases greatly even if AP makes no process or automation changes. 

I recently dealt with a firm with 96% of their invoices coming in as electronic structured invoices yet they had, in my opinion, too many people in AP. 18 people spent 100% of their time resolving discrepancies. They knew the causes but did not understand which to fix. A simple analysis identified 3 sources of nearly half of the discrepancies. Fixing those took 3 days and freed up 8 of the 18 people.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Cost per invoice is a useful metric if you see how it changes within your own organization. Trying to use it to benchmark against others is a waste of time. No two companies include the same components in their calculations and there are even differences in how they define invoice!</p>
<p>The most important metric for AP is measuring input quality.  If input quality improves, AP productivity increases greatly even if AP makes no process or automation changes. </p>
<p>I recently dealt with a firm with 96% of their invoices coming in as electronic structured invoices yet they had, in my opinion, too many people in AP. 18 people spent 100% of their time resolving discrepancies. They knew the causes but did not understand which to fix. A simple analysis identified 3 sources of nearly half of the discrepancies. Fixing those took 3 days and freed up 8 of the 18 people.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
