Duke_COMM_480_Final_Option_1

Edwards School of Business

Cameco Business Co-operative Education Program

Work Term Report COMM 480

Electronic Invoicing: Solutions and Application in Accounts Payable – Option I

Cameco Corporation

Gail Diederichs

January 2nd, 2013 to August 30th, 2013

Cameco Corporation Head Office

2121 11th Street West

Saskatoon, SK

Prepared By:

Clint Duke (11095448)

[email protected]

or

[email protected]

306-956-6288

Date of Submission:

Sunday, August 18th 2013

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Electronic Invoicing: Solutions and Application in Accounts Payable

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ............................................................................................................................4

Introduction ......................................................................................................................................5

Topic, Scope, and Purpose ........................................................................................................................ 5

Consulting Report ..............................................................................................................................6

Current Processes and Identified Issues ................................................................................................... 6

Current Automation and Relevant Issues ................................................................................................. 7

E-Invoicing Benefits ................................................................................................................................... 8

Limitations, and Challenges ...................................................................................................................... 9

Methods and Solutions ........................................................................................................................... 10

Semi-Automated ................................................................................................................................. 10

Fully-Automated ................................................................................................................................. 11

Outsourced.......................................................................................................................................... 12

Recommendations ........................................................................................................................... 12

Conclusion ....................................................................................................................................... 13

Bibliography .................................................................................................................................... 14

References: ............................................................................................................................................. 14

Other Sources ......................................................................................................................................... 14

Appendices ...................................................................................................................................... 15

Appendix A: Accounts Payable E-Invoicing Questionnaire ..................................................................... 15

Appendix B: AP Process Diagrams .......................................................................................................... 22


4

Executive Summary

Electronic invoicing is generally defined as the transmission of invoice data from supplier to buyer in any

electronic format.The purpose of this report is to increase knowledge and awareness of e-invoicing

amongst internal stakeholders. The report reiterates common problems in procure to pay and accounts

payable processes, and introduces the reader to e-invoicing in its various forms. Finally,

recommendations are made on the basis of a comparative analysis of solutions, and potential application

in accounts payable.

Current processes are troubled by longstanding inefficiencies arising from a dependence on paper, loyalty

for manual tasks, and aging automation technology. Employees in the role of filing clerk, AP admin and

GRIR admin are most familiar with problematic processes in the world of invoicing. Cameco invoices

are 100% paper, the filing clerk handles each invoice multiple times in times consuming mail, archival,

and retrieval processes. AP admins manually key the vast majority of incoming invoices while coping

with keying errors, approval obstacles, and vendor inquiries, resulting in backlogs of invoices that plague

AP initiatives such as paid on time.

Discussion of current automation in AP reveals that the most prominent issues in evaluated receipt and

invoicing plan settlement are caused by misunderstanding and inadequate training amongst users.

(Vendors, SCM, AP) The applications of IPS and ERS are explicit, and have numerous inherent

limitations. They are by no means a substitute for e-invoicing, whose range of applications effectively

substitutes those of dated IPS and ERS practices.

On the whole, benefits of e-invoicing consist of electronic management of invoice data, increased

attainability of AP/finance goals, and potential medium to long term cost savings. Eliminating paper

from AP processes is the prerequisite to every perceived and realized benefit in e-invoicing. Prominent

examples of cascading benefits include: elimination of manual tasks, optimal resource allocation, and

proactive management of back-end AP, or P2P issues.

E-invoicing is not a comprehensive solution to all issues in AP. Important challenges associated with

such technology include working cooperatively with other departments regarding implementation,

ensuring complete integration with the ERP system SAP, and vendor management regarding technology

adoption and process changes.

Technically speaking, the foundation for every variation of true e-invoicing is an electronic format for

invoice data that can be managed without manual intervention. EDI is the broadest example of this,

however many subsets of formatting and conversion are available given different situations. Three

distinct categories are used to sort, compare, and evaluate a variety common practices and solutions. The

advantages and disadvantages of each type of solution must be considered when deciding the best fit.

I recommend adopting a solution whose characteristics are tailored to address current AP needs and meet

the unique requirements/expectations of our company. Further planning and analysis for many factors

must be performed in order for this project to move forward. Finally, given the scope of preparation and

planning required for implementing e-invoicing, I recommend work begin as soon as possible.


5

Introduction

Cameco Corporation is a publicly owned uranium company based out of Saskatoon, Saskatchewan.

Operations consist of the mining and refinement of uranium, or U3O8 and its subsequent conversion into

fuel for nuclear power plants. The company owns and operates four sites in the Athabasca Basin region

of northern Saskatchewan, as well as satellite mining operations in the United States and abroad. The

company also conducts exploration projects around the world, most notably in Kazakhstan and Australia.

Finally its ownership of Bruce Power; the largest (6,300 MW/year) nuclear power plant in North

America, demonstrates its resolve supply clean energy in the face of rising demand. In this way Cameco

Corporation has successfully integrated itself in virtually every aspect of the uranium industry.

Working in the accounts payable (AP) department of a publicly traded company is a unique experience

that provides countless learning opportunities to me as a student majoring in finance. The scope of our

operations, the quality of resources, and the helpfulness of my coworkers provide a perfect environment

in which to gain work experience and develop one’s skill set. I have performed duties assigned to the

roles of AP administrator, vendor data master, filing clerk, and goods receipt, invoice receipt (GR/IR)

clearing administrator. Examples include keying invoices, updating vendor information, filing

documents, and resolving problematic invoices.

Topic, Scope, and Purpose

Electronic invoicing (E-invoicing) is defined as the transmission of an invoice from supplier to buyer in

any electronic format, and is the topic of this discussion. In its purest form, the accounting systems of

both are integrated technologically, eliminating the need for manual data entry.It is worth noting that

there are E-invoicing systems for issuers and recipients. For our purposes, this report covers only the

latter. Therefore E-invoicing encompasses everything from simple PDF and Word documents received

by email, to vendor portals/databases, and high-tech scan & data capture. These and other methods will

be discussed in detail later in the report.

A considerable amount of planning and preparation went into choosing suitable (and unbiased) sources,

defining a realistic scope, and determining what information would be most useful to my employer. The

following topics are discussed in the consulting report:

Discussion of contemporary and historic issues with paper based and automated processes in AP

Benefits and challenges associated with e-invoicing as a whole

Explanation and comparative analysis of e-invoicing methods

Recommendations linking paper based issues with available solutions

The inspiration to write this report stems from my newfound experience in the world of AP. Speaking

with my supervisors/coworkers, and performing the work myself, it is clear that many common problems

in AP are directly linked to dated processes and a paper based invoicing system. The purpose of this

report is to make internal stakeholders aware of the benefits and challenges associated with this

technology, in hopes that a rational decision regarding its implementation can be made.


6

Consulting Report

Accounts Payable is a much more complex business process than its single line balance sheet summary

would lead most to believe. Essentially, the goal is simple; process invoices, manage exceptions, and

issue payments. Despite this, every invoice has the potential to result in a staggering breadth of scenarios,

and employ a range of business processes requiring experience and knowledge. It is this innate diversity

in nature, but singularity in objective, that makes automation such a daunting, albeit attractive prospect.

E-Invoicing is marketed by countless providers as a method for AP departments the world round, to

streamline processes, cut costs, and eliminate paper. With the economic belt tightening around the world,

the adoption rate of e-invoicing is increasing in an attempt to capitalize on technology. However,as many

of us are aware, large organizations are change-resistant and often assume a wait-and-see approach

regarding such opportunities.Rightfully so, many questions must be answered before undertaking such a

significant project. The all important question beingwhether the perceived benefits outweigh the costs.

The first step towards automation is to examine our current processes to provide an accurate description

of our automation needs. “Current practices and needs should be considered as the foundation for any

successful economic policy and related initiative.” (Ciciriello, C. Hayworth, M., 2009, p. 2) E-invoicing

impacts the duties of the file clerk, AP administrator, and Goods receipt, invoice receipt (GRIR)

administrator positions. Paper based and general issues regarding business processes for each position

(citations from current employees) are discussed below. Note: See Appendix B-1 for diagram summary

Current Processes and Identified Issues

On average, AP receives 12,500 invoices every month and about 90% of all incoming mail for Cameco

HQ. Of these approximately 85% are received by mail or fax, and the remainder emailed, or retrieved via

vendor portals. Regardless of receiving method, all invoices are processed and stored using original paper

documents. Sorting, printing, and stamping invoices prior to posting, comprises around four hours of the

filing clerks day. (Adilman, Personal Communication, 2013)Requiring another four hours per day, and

considerable physical office space, archival is possibly the most resource intensive process in AP. Lastly,

retrieval of aged, lost, or misfiled documents is a common time consuming process.

To summarize, problematic Filing Clerk processes include:

Consumption/cost of resources (Time, paper, office space etc.)

Mailed Documents detrimental to paid on time objectives (2-3 days in mail)

Time consuming process of retrieving physical documents aged one year or older

In consultation with current employees, I found that most process issues for general AP admins arise from

longstanding inefficiencies within the procure-to-pay (P2P) process. The positioning of AP as the final

step in this process means the goals and processes of AP are inherently dependent upon internal and

external stakeholders performing their duties in correct and timely fashion. Missing invoice information,

(PO, SES, backup etc.) approvals, (SES, freight, non PO-match) and goods receipts (GR)are all examples

of this.In fact, AP admins spend an average of 20% of their time communicating with internal and

external stakeholders regarding such payment obstacles. (Weisbeck, Siluk, Krawczyk, Pers. Comm.,


7

2013) Vendor calls/inquiries are another costly process, particularly because they are recurring, often

unnecessary, and can require significant time and effort.

AP admins are responsible for quickly and accurately keying about 80 invoices per day. Efforts to speed

up processing time often result in errors and subsequent rework of documents. Additionally, the everyday

occurrence of the issues listed above creates a backlog of parked/blocked invoices that often miss

payment deadlines. Clearly the current situation conflicts with department goals. According to our

department supervisor, the biggest priorities in AP are: one-touch processing, accuracy and speed of

input, timely authorization, and achieving on time payment. (Smuda, Per. Comm., 2013)

GR/IR administrators are responsible for resolving invoice exceptions, (blocked or disputed invoices)

monitoring vendor accounts, and managing clearing accounts. First, such processes rely heavily on

members of supply chain management, (SCM) or other departments, and as a result, take more of a

reactive approach to problems.(Nicol, Per. Comm., 2013) Requests to SCM become backlogged and are

often ignored or forgotten, resulting in late payment and more rework. Second, similar to vendor calls,

communication with vendors regarding missing invoices and correct application of payments, is a

problematic process. Finally, duplicate invoices, as well as the need to retrieve, scan, and attach

problematic documents, are issues directly related to paper based invoicing.

Current Automation and Relevant Issues

In preparation for the challenges of e-invoicing, it is important to take a look at our current automation

and pinpoint the reasons behind common problems. AP utilizes two methods of automatic invoice

processing, including evaluated receipt settlement, (ERS) and invoicing plan settlement.(IPS) ERS is

SAP automation that automatically posts an invoice when the GR is completed, or goods are received.

IPS is a type of purchase order that automatically posts invoices according to a predetermined schedule of

payments.

ERS is used for handling vendors who routinely supply extreme volumes of low dollar value items. The

two way match (PO to GR) creates added pressure on the accuracy of the GR posting process, because

information cannot be cross-verified with invoice data. Critical invoice fields-document date and invoice

number-must be manually entered from information obtained from the packing slip included with the

shipment. Keying errors here can be detrimental to GR/IR dispute resolution as these fields are the only

identifying characteristics of outstanding items on the account. Another limitation is that additional

charges such as freight and environmental fees must be pre-determined and negotiated within the PO for

payment. Discrepancies here result in short payments that must be reworked and sometimes they are

simply written off. Finally, ERS causes confusion for the vendors regarding which invoices they need to

send to AP.

The intended candidates for IPS are accounts payables whose outstanding amounts and required dates of

payment can be predicted. Lease and rental agreements are the most common examples of IPS uses. The

most common issues are mistakes made by buyers in SCM when creating the PO. These include

incorrect payment dates, or amounts, and failing to populate the reference field with the lease or rental

agreement number. The latter makes it particularly difficult to reconcile disputed invoices with the

vendor, and for the vendor to determine what to apply the payments to. Possibly the biggest downfall


8

associated with IPS is its inflexibility, and the creators inability to accommodate subsequent changes to

the agreement. Examples include credits, price changes, extended agreements, and unpredicted/newly

incurred costs.

The common thread among problems with current automation seems to be a lack of training in, and

understanding behind the processes, unique requirements, and limitations of the software. This problem

occurs with both internal and external stakeholders. Moving forward, it is important to remember that

such solutions are only as effective as the people working with them.

E-Invoicing Benefits

Since the widespread implementation of enterprise resource planning (ERP) systems in the early 2000s,

consistent efforts have been made to not only to consolidate all financial information in a centralized

system, but also to ease and streamline the processes by which this information is entered and stored. E-

invoicing is the method for AP to achieve this while realizing numerous cost benefits, and becoming more

proactive in pursuit of department objectives. While the potential benefits are numerous, it is important to

keep our expectations realistic. We must understand the limitations of the technology, and predict

challenges we are likely to encounter.

Perhaps the biggest benefit of most e-invoicing solutions is the ability to store invoice data electronically.

This eliminates the need for many processes performed by the filing clerk. Prominent examples include:

Eliminates large proportion of manual receiving processes (mail, printing, stamping, sorting)

Eliminates need for all manual archiving of invoices& physical storage space

Safe, secure, storage (No lost, misfiled, damaged documents)

Reduced environmental impact of conducting business

Instant access to invoice data (no digging, scanning, attaching, replacement of documents)

Reduction in AP costs is one of the most advertised benefits of e-invoicing. Reliable reports quote a

particular example of$14.82 CAD cost savings per invoice. (Koch, B. 2013, p. 14)

NOTE: This example uses unique AP statistics for calculating costs. Internal analysis is necessary for

accurate estimation of cost savings.

As a major liability component, financial efficiency improvements realized by the potential cost benefits,

can dramatically change the way AP is viewed by senior management. Examples of cost savings include:

Increased proportion of captured discounts

Labour savings attributed to increased AP admin efficiencies (Decreased manual keying)

Decreased use of office supplies (paper, copiers, etc.)

Likely the most crucial benefit to the AP supervisor is how e-invoicing will help reach department targets

and accomplish company objectives. According to current AP supervisor Doreen Smuda, (Per. Comm.

2013) the biggest priorities for AP are on time payment, accurate one touch processing, and timely

authorization and approval.


9

The elimination of manual keying alone will directly reduce the number of touches an invoice requires for

payment, and reduce the frequency of errors. Theoretically, the impact of e-invoicing on current

processes would lead to a reprioritization of duties for the AP admin. With less time spent keying, we

could expect to see efficiency improvements in approval, problem resolution, and vendor management

processes.

Limitations, and Challenges

Realistically, we cannot expect that adopting e-invoicing will provide an instant solution to all

longstanding AP issues, nor can we assume that such technology will not have unique difficulties.Each of

the following is a serious obstacle that must be overcome to be successful.

First, we must remember that e-invoicing is not a direct cure for existing inefficiencies in the P2P process.

E-invoicing simply changes the means by which invoices are transmitted from supplier to buyer.

Problems such as low matching percentages, (PO, GR etc.) long approval wait times, and high frequency

of parks/blocks are problems based elsewhere, and should be minimized before implementation. Second,

developing an e-invoicing initiative requires the support and approval of technology services, and supply

chain management departments. Despite intimate involvement through business processes, such

departments are largely independent, and often polarizing in nature. Overcoming these obstacles and

working as a team is crucial for e-invoicing success.

Second, special consideration must be given to how such applications will integrate with our current

technology, in our case, the ERP system SAP. “Typically, the bottleneck in automating business

processes resides in integration with the surrounding IT landscape” (Basware Corp., 2013, p. 4)One of the

main purposes behind having a centralized ERP system is that all financial information is readily

accessible. Therefore it would be illogical to adopt any automation solution that operates independently

of the existing system. Fortunately, this is such a common understanding among suppliers that many are

prepared to adopt virtually every ERP environment in existence today. Exclusively utilizing SAP, our

ERP system is comparably better prepared for this limitation.

Finally are the questions surrounding planning for vendors: Specifically, how will our vendors react to

such a proposition? This is likely the biggest uncertainty regarding e-invoicing. Cameco Corporation is

unique in that it works to foster close relationships with vendors in northern Saskatchewan for logistical

and corporate social responsibility (CSR) reasons. With many reliant on Cameco as a main source of

business, northern vendors are likely to support the decision, however they may lack the required

resources (staff, technology etc.) for truly integrated e-invoicing. As such, alternative methods and

accommodations will need to be considered for these and other small vendors. Other large vendors may

already be using such technology and their transition would be much smoother.

Each vendor will have its own advantages and disadvantages, so it is important to assess vendors

individually to gain an accurate sense of requirements, capabilities, and overall potential. (Koch, B. 2013,

p.24) Some important questions to consider when performing a vendor assessment include:

Do they have previous e-invoicing experience?

Taking technical capability into consideration, what methods are preferred?

Are there well-known complexities associated with their invoices?


10

What incentives does this vendor have for adopting e-invoicing?

How has the vendor adapted to policy changes in the past? (EFT payments, e-mail invoices etc.)

Methods and Solutions

This section describes the different models of e-invoicing from an AP perspective, as well as the

applications and technology therein. Keep in mind these are general descriptions of the processes and

individual suppliers may provide variations that differ slightly. To avoid confusion, I sorted all available

solutions into three categories: semi-automated, fully-automated, and outsourced. To better understand

these applications, it is important to list and define the data exchange formats utilized in E-invoicing. (See

Figure 1.1)

EDI and popular spinoffs such as XML are essentially the foundation for e-invoicing. Automated

processes are made possible by such communication tools that enable businesses with differing systems

to initiate transactions. The other formats listed are simply means of converting data from other formats

and sources into this electronic language.

Figure 1.1 Data Exchange Formats and Definitions:

Format Definition

Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) -Standardized format for transferring business data

(orders, invoices etc.) securely between business

networks and applications. Common standards

include: EDIFACT, X.12, and XML

Extensible Mark-Up Language (XML) -Common standard of data exchange for invoicing

made readable by XML compatible software

Paper or Image Based Portable Document Format

(PDF),and Subsequent Optical Character

Recognition, (OCR)

-Scanned paper/PDF documents read by OCR

software and converted into usable format

Web-Based EDI -Data is entered through web based applications

andconverted into usable format

Printer Driver (virtual printer) -Invoice is “printed” by supplier and converted into

desired data file. (ex. EDI for processing, archive

format)

PDF to EDI Conversion -Conversion service from PDF to standardized

format for e-invoicing

XML-PDF Hybrid -PDF embedded with XML for compliance with e-

invoicing

Semi-Automated

In semi-automated solutions, supplier processes are not automated, and have the potential for error. The

most common examples are web based applications and portal sites. In this scenario, the supplier

manually enters invoice data generated by their ERP system and based on the PO agreement. This

supplier facing application downloads the file (in required format) into the receivers system, subsequently

auto matches against GR, PO, and Supplier data, and posts the document for payment.(see Appendix B-2

for diagram) Another important aspect of web applications is the ability for vendors to check invoice and

payment status online, rather than phoning or emailing AP.


11

This is an excellent solution for vendors with low invoice volume, difficult invoicing formats, or any

supplier lacking technology resources for fully automated e-invoicing. Therefore it is best suited for

small vendors who wish to be included in e-business priorities. However, the problem with this method is

that most improved efficiencies are single-sided and only realized by the application host.(Ciciriello,C.,

Hayworth,M. 2009, p.12) With many of our vendors hosting such applications, AP has found the

retrieval process is actually less efficient than traditional email because of login, and retrieval time.

Therefore it is easy to understand why such methods may not be preferred from a vendor

perspective.Another aspect to address is to send notification or reminder emails that invoices need to be

entered, especially if this is not their primary method of invoicing.

Fully-Automated

In fully automated solutions, or true e-invoicing, the ERP systems of supplier and buyer are connected

through a series of processes tailored to meet the needs of both.(See Appendix B-3 for diagram)An

example of this would be the direct model-a closed EDI network utilizing the required formats for

payment. In this scenario, a supplier creates an invoice as usual and exports the data for conversion into

an acceptable EDI format. The data issent to AP where it creates the corresponding invoicewhich is

imported into the ERP system, auto-matched, posted, and archived.

Complications arise when suppliers do not use EDI, and are incapable or unwilling to adopt these

practices. In these cases, alternative solutions and conversion technology must be provided and applied to

obtain invoice data electronically. For example, accommodating paper invoices with scan and capture

OCR, or handling PDF files with conversion software.

It is important to note the difference between in-house and out-of-house variations of direct model e-

invoicing. Some companies choose to develop, maintain, and use these solutions internally. Others

employ the use of a direct model through the efforts of a service provider, who handles the development,

maintenance, and technical usage of the system. Internally developed solutions require substantially more

resources (IT, marketing, legal, etc) and historically have been used to manage data volume between large

corporates.(TAPN, 2013 p.15) Advantages for out-of-house or software as a service (SAAS) solutions

include speed of implementation, minimized training, and low start-up costs.

The most popular option for full-automation is a centralized cloud or network solution. In this model the

service provider develops and maintains cloud based conversion solutions and acts as a mediator of sorts

for data exchange between groups of suppliers and buyers who access the cloud via an application.For

example, suppliers transmit invoice data in their preferred format to the cloud where they are converted to

whatever format desired by AP. Invoice data is archived for both parties, and uploaded for automatic

entry. Networks have the benefit of connecting large groups of suppliers and buyers, and often provide

an impressive scope of applications/solutions as a result. However some networks are geographically

specialized and will have larger networks of clients in specific areas of the world than others.

For some, a hybrid system utilizing a direct model in combination with semi-automated and/or cloud

based components is the best option. This is generally favoured by organizations that have invested

considerable resources into developing direct models with strategically important suppliers, and wish to

onboard smaller vendors using simpler, more cost effective means.


12

Outsourced

Most solution providers operate a SAAS and/or network based e-invoicing model to provide low cost

solutions to the broadest range of clients. Indeed the SAAS e-invoicing market has evolved to include

outsourced solutions for every possible aspect of the process, from data formatting and conversion

specialists, all the way to 100% total invoice management. It is important to note this extreme variation

among providers in this category. Each provider offers a range of solutions targeted towards different

clients, so it is important to familiarize yourself with provider capabilities and product offering before

making a decision.

Total invoice management refers to a scenario in which the service provider assumes responsibility for

electronically entering,and issuing payment for all client invoices. This means they accommodate every

type of supplier invoicing using all available tools, including scan and data capture and the manual keying

of handwritten or faxed documents. Realistically, this is the only way for AP to achieve 100% e-

invoicing, and guarantee a single universal format for processing and archival. (Koch, B. 2013, p.42)

Outsourcing on this scale, allows an organization to realize e-invoicing benefits with virtually no training

or knowledge of the technical aspects. It also means trusting another organization with important AP

initiatives, and relying on them to get the job done.

Recommendations

Based on my observations of AP processes, and research of available solutions, I recommend adopting a

network based SAAS solution including web-based EDI, and automated workflow components. A

solution with these features would be the best fit considering identified applications in AP.

Additionally,given the current development of the e-invoicing market, and the required planning, time,

and resources required for proper implementation, I recommend developing a business case/project

request in the near future.

Cameco has an extremely large and diverse vendor database, consisting of approximately 15,000 vendors

located around the world, and concentrated in North America and Saskatchewan in particular.Although

the majority of our vendors are very loyal and adaptable to process changes, many are small businesses

with technology limitations. Larger organizations may currently utilize EDI technology, but OCR, web-

based EDI, and other conversion technologies must be available in the same network for smaller vendors

looking to participate. Such a system is essential for onboarding as many vendors as possible.

Further, the network must accommodate vendor inquiries regarding invoice status and reasoning for

delayed payment as well as a method of submission for correspondence.Such self-service can also assist

with maintenance of vendor master data, and reduce administration costs for suppliers. Automated

workflow for approvals and exception invoices increases visibility towards P2P inefficiencies and

decreases delays for payment. Having a workflow automatically generated and forwarded to the correct

personnel (including the vendor) for resolution eliminates additional communication via email or

telephone. These features are mandatory in order to maximize available AP resources, and provide

adoption incentives for suppliers.

The evolution of e-invoicing has reached its peak in many public sectorand buyer to consumer (B2C)

markets around the world. For example, almost every utility company and retail store offers online


13

billing and payment options, and in many areas of Europe e-invoicing in the public sector is mandated by

law. Studies have shown that growth in these markets is typically followed by rapid adoption in buyer to

buyer (B2B) markets. (Koch, B. 2013, p.43) In light marketing from solution providers, (Ex. Tim

Hortons, GM etc.) we know that there is at least increasing activity among corporates. As a company

known for its innovation, Cameco must seriously consider its options in e-invoicing to avoid becoming a

laggard in these respects.

Developing business case, acquiring management approval, and implementing the technology rollout are

enormous undertakings that cannot be underestimated. They involve the cooperation and efforts of the

technology, and supply chain departments, and can be years in the making. Value propositions and

analysis on financial impacts must be completed and presented in order to get the ball rolling. An

implementation strategy and timeline should also be laid out in preparation for the project, which should

include:

Service provider evaluation and selection (BTS and AP)

Back end ERP integration (BTS)

Application and procedure training (AP)

Onboarding procedure and training for vendors (AP, SCM)

Vendor assessment and selection of a pilot trading partner (AP, SCM)

Taking these factors into consideration, my final recommendation is to make e-invoicing a priority in AP

and the finance department as soon as possible. Ideally, the assignment of key objectives to individuals in

the departments listed above would ensure timely progress.

Conclusion

As a method of increasing the efficiency of current processes and reducing costs, e-invoicing is an

exciting opportunity for AP. Analysis of current paper based invoicing processes has identified clear-cut

applications for this technology, and while it will not be a one stop solution for historical problems in AP,

it is a step in the right direction. Moving forward, one must realize the limitations of e-invoicing, and

prepare for potential obstacles and challenges that deteriorate the probability of success. Finally, a

fundamental understanding of the functionality and technology behind different types/methods is

paramount to arriving at a best-fit conclusion of e-invoicing needs.

The best-fit solution for Cameco is one that addresses our unique requirements and whose value can be

established on a company-wide basis. If it is determined to be a priority, the project magnitude and

current market landscape indicate AP and finance should begin immediately.While not a comprehensive

resolution for all of the questions surrounding automation in AP, my recommendations are based on

simple evidence, and form the basis of an interesting business proposition.

I would like to thank everyone who has supported me throughout my work term and allowed me to make

this contribution. The opinions and input from my colleagues in accounts payable formed the foundations

of this report and were absolutely critical.


14

Bibliography

References:

Smuda, D; Adilman, B; Siluk, H; Nicol, P; Weisbeck, M; Diederichs, G; Accounts Payable Q&A Session.

Personal Communication, See Appendix Afor document

Basware Corporation (2013) Basware Solution Integration in Multi-ERP Environments (White Paper)

Retrieved from: http://www.basware.com/sites/default/files/restricted/basware_anyerp_seamless_and_safe_system_integration.pdf?WPD=28

Koch, B. (2013) E-Invoicing / E-Billing the Catalyst for AR/AP Automation Billentis EXPP Summit 2013

Market Report (Emailed publication-on mailing list)

Ciciriello, C., Hayworth, M. (2009) European E-Invoicing Guide for SMEs European Business Lab

Retrieved from: http://celeris-group.eu/public/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ebl_guide_final_print-copy.pdf

Ravikumar, M. (2010)E-Invoicing: Why Should I Care, and What Can I Do About It (White Paper)Retrieved

from:http://www.banctec.com/fileadmin/Documents/North-America/downloads/whitepapers/05WP-0710-101.pdf

The Accounts Payable Network o/a TAPN (2013) Transforming Accounts Payable How the Right Solution

Can Increase Value and the Bottom Line(Commerce Bank White Paper) Published by: Financial

Operations Network

Other Sources

Center for Technology in Government (2013) Electronic Data Interchange: A Survey of Key Concepts and

Issues for Electronic Recordkeeping

Retrieved From:http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/key_concepts?chapter=3&PrintVersion=2

Penttinen, E. Hallikainen, P. Salomäki, T. (2009) Impacts of the Implementation of Electronic Invoicing on Buyer-Seller Relationships Retrieved from: Google Scholar, URL:http://biz.aalto.fi/en/research/projects/rte/publications/penttinen-hallikainen-salomaki_2009.pdf

http://www.basware.com/sites/default/files/restricted/basware_anyerp_seamless_and_safe_system_integration.pdf?WPD=28

http://celeris-group.eu/public/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ebl_guide_final_print-copy.pdf

http://www.banctec.com/fileadmin/Documents/North-America/downloads/whitepapers/05WP-0710-101.pdf

http://www.ctg.albany.edu/publications/reports/key_concepts?chapter=3&PrintVersion=2

http://biz.aalto.fi/en/research/projects/rte/publications/penttinen-hallikainen-salomaki_2009.pdf


15

Appendices

Appendix A: Accounts Payable E-Invoicing Questionnaire

General AP Admin: Helynn Siluk

1. On average, how long does it take to process a three way match invoice? Invoice requiring SES

approval? FI document?

A 3-way match could be as short as 1 minute or as long as 15 minutes. An average would

be 2-3 minutes.

SES invoice – if it comes in with an accepted SES # it would be similar to a 3 way match.

If it requires park/scan/email request about 5 – 7 minutes. More if follow up is required,

average of 5 minutes per follow up.

FI invoices -For freight, or an invoice that arrives with coding and approval in place 1 -2

minutes. If it has to be parked/scanned/email request or parked/sent through

interoffice – 5 – 7 minutes. More if follow up required, average 5 minutes per follow up.

2. What are the biggest obstacles/challenges to achieving on time payment?

Invoices not received in accounts payable – either not sent by the vendor, directed to

requisitioners, or lost in AP.

Invoices that arrive with missing information – no/incorrect PO#, department or

requisitioner not noted, items invoiced do not match the purchase order

Invoices requiring approval not approved in time to meet terms.

Invoices blocked either manually or by the system.

3. On average, how much time is spent (daily) handling vendor calls/ payment inquiries?

It is cyclical in nature. At month-end and particularly at year end, it can consume one-half of

each day or more if there is a particularly problematic invoice. Other times there are no inquiries

for a week or more. My guess, if it were spread evenly across each work day, about 10 minutes

per day.

4. On average, how much time is spent communicating with Cameco employees for approvals?

1 to 1.5 days per week.

5. What are the biggest challenges associated with a paper based invoicing system?

Invoices that are lost or misfiled; physical storage space required, time required to retrieve filed

invoices when required.

6. What are your biggest concerns regarding implementing new automation technology in AP?

Technology chosen on basis of cost alone, not necessarily what would work the best

Loss of jobs; resistance to change

Existing process problems not resolved prior to automation so that they are

compounded by the automation. (ERS is a good example of this).

Automation will be forced on AP, leaving AP the mess of cleaning up issues.

7. What are the main issues involved in processing invoices for bulk commodities?

It is not that different from other 3 way match/SES processing.


16

Most issues stem from receiving, such as: product not received in SAP, received

incorrectly (wrong PO, wrong PO line, wrong quantity), inconsistency in entering

document/bill of lading number.

To a lesser degree issues arise from vendor invoicing errors – pricing, quantity, incorrect

PO/site references.

8. What have been the biggest challenges/obstacles to implementing automated processes in

the past?

Money. AP is far down the list when there is competition from production and

marketing where return from investment is easily quantified.

The issue noted in #6 – not resolving existing problems prior to automation.

Additional Comments, Suggestions, Opinions:

Switching to electronic documents would provide the biggest return. Receiving invoices via

some type of EDI system would be the most efficient; scanning into the system somewhat less

so. Savings in paper, ink, and storage space would likely offset the cost of electronic storage

required. Documents should then not be lost or misfiled. A central electronic storage would

allow self-service for those needing to view the invoice. If the document creates a work flow

that could be forwarded to approver(s) even more benefit could be realized.

When considering automation, remember the 80/20 rule – 20% of the invoices create 80% of

the problems. The invoices that can be easily read and processed by a computer system are the

same invoices that take very little time for people to process.

Without complex (and likely costly) programming, software that reads and processes invoices

will have the same difficulties as does ERS with extra charges and varying taxes.

Automation in the form of a vendor interface where they could log in and view status of their

invoices and payments would be helpful.

General AP Admin: Anonymous

1. On average, how long does it take to process a three way match invoice?

One minute

Invoice requiring SES approval?

to park, scan, send out for SES and post, possibly a follow up, I would say five minutes and

invoice.

FI document?

One minute if all of the back-up and signatures are in place


Invoices not being detailed, internal stakeholders not replying or providing feedback on why an

invoice cannot be approved when sent out for approval. vendors submitting invoices when they

are close to being due or already due. Cameco’s SES process for vendor’s to provide SES #s on

invoices.


17


For an AP Admin, maybe 10 minutes. But if we were to fall behind and are not processing

current mail, it could take an hour or two. The more invoices that aren’t posted result in more

inquiries.

4. On average, how much time is spent communicating with Cameco employees for approvals?

Depends if they actually respond. There is a lot of follow up involved as it is not unusual for

Cameco employees to ignore inquiries or provide little to no detail on why something hasn’t

been approved. I would say an average of an hour a day.


A lot of the basic invoices are tedious small amounts as well as easy keying. This can become

mindless to an employee. (not sure if that is what you are looking for)

6. What are your biggest concerns regarding implementing new automation technology in AP?

Reconciliation would to me be time greater spent than entering the actual invoices. Unless your

vendors are 100% on board to completely reading and invoicing per PO, a lot of errors can occur

as we have seen with ERS. I would prefer reconciliation to mindless data entry but a lot of

people’s preferences would differ from mine.

General AP Admin: Melissa Weisbeck

1. On average, how long does it take to process a three way match invoice? Invoice requiring

SES approval? FI document?

Three way match – 20 seconds.

*My average may be different than others as I have very simple three way match that

does not have a lot of problems. This time can increase significantly if no PO number is

on the invoices.

SES approval – Invoices with SES on it, average of 30 seconds. Invoices that need to be sent out

for requests, average of 5 minutes.

*The 5 minutes includes scanning, emailing and multiple requests. This time can

increase significantly if no PO number is on the invoices.

FI Document – With approval, average of 3 minutes. Without approval, average of 4 minutes.

*I find there is more of a variety of time differences for FI’s. Some invoices that come in

approve take 30 seconds. Others take longer if they have a special process. Example,

an IPN will take a few minutes longer as you have to look up coding, send emails and

check balance forwards. Special invoices like Diners can take 15 minutes if it does not

balance. IPN’s such as Rogers, SaskTel take more time for tracking and multiple

approvals for one invoice. Other examples like Courier invoices (Purolator) may take

more time to check individual costs of shipments and assign tax codes. Hotel invoices


18

may also take up to 10 minutes of searching for who booked the hotels if there is no

authority to travel.

*Are we counting the IPN reallocation in the processing of FI’s? Example – OC tanner,

Diners, Rogers, Sasktel.


1) Internal and External users not following or understanding P2P process or other AP/SCM

processes.

*This can be examples of not having a Purchase order SES number before a

product/service is orders. Not using departments for their expertise (Purchasing).

Sending in an item not on the exception list as an FI.

2) Not having required information on the documents sent to accounts payable.

*Missing PO numbers, SES numbers, Contact names, approvals, backup, information on

payment requisitions, coding, correct authorization.

3) Invoices not being sent to AP.

4) Vendors not following the purchase order items.

*Example - Charging freight when the Purchase order clearly says ship via Purolator

collect.

5) Rework caused by errors.

*Including AP, SCM, internal users and vendors.


Since February 2013, approximately 15 minutes a day. (This number jumps up significantly in

correlation with the number of outstanding parks, aged items and unprocessed mail.)

4. On average, how much time is spent communicating with Cameco employees for

approvals?

Since February 2013, I believe it is 3 hours a day. This includes the initial send-off of approvals,

and follow up emails and explaining the problems/solutions in question 2. (Again this number

jumps up significantly in correlation with the number of outstanding parks, aged items and

unprocessed mail.)


1) Dependency on Paper from a company as a whole increases questions to AP, scanning on

emailing. Since we are very paper dependant as a company everyone needs to physically

see everything. The system will show what people are inquiring about most of the time, but

people inside and out do not know how to read the system and are generally slow to

change.

2) Trust. Keying errors and other issues decrease trust that something will be processed on

time and correctly. This can also effect filling (example writing the wrong number on an

invoice document can have something lost in the filling cabinet.)

3) Time and money spent on filling, stamping, sorting, writing, scanning.


19

6. What are your biggest concerns regarding implementing new automation technology in

AP?

1) That something will be paid incorrectly or twice. I think if the new automation is tested

properly that this concern can be mitigated.

2) Change management – AP and other departments may resist the new automation and not

trust it. (similar to question 5 point 1)

3) Job elimination and/or job change – with a new automation our more data entry type roles

could change to more analytical type roles. With this, there could be job elimination. Or, if

the job is not eliminated but changed, can people fit into that role?

4) Training – a lack of proper training and understanding could be detrimental to a positive

change.

Filing Clerk: Barb Adilman

1. On average, how much time is spent (daily) searching for invoices in email/retrieving them

from portal websites?

Just processing the emails to have them ready for sorting in the morning it takes about 2hrs, in the afternoon it can take about 40mins to an 1.5hr, depending on the day. But if you are looking for a specific invoice – here is an answer of what I have done : -Most of

the time it is maybe about 5 to 10mins periodically, the odd time (very odd time). When

assisting with this year’s audit, it took over 2.5hrs one afternoon to assist them with this. Hope I

am explaining myself well?

2. Approximately what percentage of invoices arrive by mail or fax?

I would say close to 85 percent and possibly more as of late, we are getting more vendors sending in by email.

3. How long does it take to retrieve original documents that are dated 1 year and older? How

often are these requested?

If they are within the 4 years that we have stored here, it usually is done within a short period of

time. Depending on the amount of request that a specific person is inquiring about it can take

on average about 10 to 15mins(small requests). Other times of the year(possibly auditing

time/or need of multiple documents) it can take hours. Can’t give a real good estimate on it.

With doing a loose estimate of requests, for just since beginning of the year(very loosely say a

few hundred requests), this could be from a single document to pages of document pulling.

GR/IR Admin: Pat Nicol

1. What are the biggest complications with AP automation currently being used by Cameco?

ERS: GR’s posted with incorrect reference which does not allow for ease of statement review

and can also result in unapplied payments.


20

Any extra charges such as freight or surcharges need to be addressed prior to PO creation to add

these costs to the item. ERS cannot accommodate extra charges which are normally posted

directly to the GL. This has resulted in short payments to the Vendor.

There is not an “all or nothing” ruling in place. Besides ERS, some Vendors have Framework

Orders with only a two way match which does not generate an ERS document for payment.

Some Vendors have a Branch on ERS and another Branch location not on ERS which creates

confusion for the Vendor as to whether to submit invoice copies. There is confusion for AP as

whether to print and distribute invoice copies or not and extra work for the posting AP Admin

who need to check each invoice copy against the PO to see if this is an ERS PO. This also creates

extra work to reconcile the statement.

IPS:

Invoicing Plans payment schedule set up with incorrect payment dates resulting in late payment.

Invoicing Plans set up without an agreed upon reference in the “Your Reference” section of the

Communication Tab on the PO Header. If this is left blank the remittance will only show the SAP

document number as a reference and many Vendors do not apply the payments correctly

claiming to not know what the payment is for.

Changes to Invoicing Plan not being applied to the payment schedule.

Credits on Invoicing Plan cannot be added to the schedule, a new line must be created and the

credit manually keyed.

Invoicing Plans not renewed resulting in late payments.

PO Flip?: Not adopted invoicing method

2. What would be your biggest concerns regarding adopting new automation technology in AP?

Proper training across Cameco to ensure all steps of the process are done correctly so as not to

create roadblocks for other departments.

3. On average, how much time is spent (daily) handling vendor inquiries, requesting invoice

copies, performing statement reviews?

Average is about 30 minutes per day.

4. What are the biggest challenges associated with handling invoice exceptions?


21

The most common blocks, taxes, quantity and price require the Procurement Specialists,

Receivers, or Requisitioners to resolve. As the workflows do not come to GRIR until they have

been investigated, GRIR was previously was mostly unaware of the blocks outstanding. When

they became overdue and a Vendor was looking for payment GRIR would then look into the

problem.

The recently created Aged Block Review Group has eliminated some of the pain points in block

resolution for Saskatchewan as the members of the group have the authority to make decisions

to resolve blocks during the review. This is also being looked at as a tool for block resolution for

Ontario operations.

In the case of the GRIR, the process is an investigation as to what can be done to clear the

outstanding entries. There are many scenarios that make create the issue including duplicate

SES’s and missing invoices. This again requires contact with Procurement Specialists, Receivers,

Requisitioners, fellow AP Admins and also Vendors to resolve.


Missing invoice copies.

Duplicate invoice entries.

Supervisor: Doreen Smuda

1. What have been the biggest obstacles for process automation in the past?

Resources and putting a recommendation forward. Resources involve many –primarily

BTS/BP&A and Finance although SCM is a stakeholder as it impacts vendors and they are or are

one of the first points of contact for vendors in the designed P2P process

2. What is the biggest priority in AP?

One touch invoice processing without error as quickly as possible. Having documents in our

ERP system SAP as quickly as possible supports timely authorization and or problem resolution.

It also allows the largest window of visibility to amounts due allowing Treasury to effectively

manage Cameco’s cash.

3. What would you like to see resolved by increased automation of processes, or E invoicing in

particular?

E-invoicing could reduce/eliminate manual processes currently required to get information into

SAP –eliminate the need for opening, date stamping, sorting and distributing mail; eliminate

most paper document filing; eliminate invoice data entry – for basic data at least; effectively

support regulatory audits and recovery audits; eliminate the need for departments to request

copies of posted documents. Although there is an initial cost for implementation and most

likely substantial the immediate and long term benefits would be readily recognized. Existing AP

team would be responsible for fewer tactile tasks and become more analytical to support

invoice problem resolution. All of these things would support ability to pay on time. The AP


22

department has grown in numbers to keep up with volumes – e-invoicing would eliminate the

requirement for additional staff.

Appendix B: AP Process Diagrams

Appendix B-1:Manual Accounts Payable Process Diagram

Description of Step: Estimated Time Requirement: Invoices Received in Mail: Receive via email or fax, then print:

-1 to 3 days Depending on location -2-4 hours per day

Sort, date stamp, and place in mail box

1-2 hours per day

Cross verify with order, and obtain approval to process

-1-10 minutes per invoice -30 minutes per day for follow ups

Post Invoice to ERP system 1-3 minutes per invoice

Problem Resolution (if necessary)

-N/A (Varies greatly)

Payment document is reviewed and approved

2 – 3 hours per day

Paper document is sorted and archived

2 – 4 hours per day


23

Appendix B-2: Ciciriello, C., Hayworth, M. (2009) Semi-Automated Invoicing Process Using Receiver

Based Web InvoicesPage 12

Retrieved from:http://celeris-group.eu/public/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ebl_guide_final_print-copy.pdf



24

Appendix B-3: Ciciriello, C., Hayworth, M. (2009) Fully Automated E-Invoicing ProcessPage 14

Retrieved from:http://celeris-group.eu/public/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/ebl_guide_final_print-copy.pdf
