The work we cover
Finance automation starts with a defined flow of documents or transactions. We help teams reduce preparation, copying, matching, and chasing while keeping financial authority with the people responsible for it. The scope can cover accounts-payable intake, receivables administration, reconciliation preparation, expense records, and reporting packs.
We distinguish the evidence a model can interpret from calculations and checks that need fixed logic. AI can prepare a description from correspondence or extract proposed fields from varied documents. Ledger totals, configured tolerances, approval status, and payment permissions need explicit rules and authoritative records.
Back-office work also crosses departments. An invoice may wait because receiving has not recorded delivery, a purchase order is incomplete, or a manager has not accepted the service. We trace these dependencies instead of treating every open item as a finance-team productivity problem. The scope can include the request and handoff required to obtain missing evidence.
How we deliver
We choose a transaction population with your finance owner and inspect recent examples through the full process. We record document types, legal entities, currencies, approvals, exception reasons, and manual interventions. A successful path and an unresolved case both belong in the design.
We assess existing accounting and ERP controls before recreating them. We agree which system holds each authoritative value, which checks already operate, and how the automation proposes or records a change. We preserve identifiers so a reviewer can trace an output back to its source.
For invoice preparation, the workflow can extract a draft, compare source records, and assemble an exception case. Uncertain values remain visible. A reviewer sees the invoice, relevant order and receipt, reason for the difference, and permitted next action. A model-generated explanation does not turn a supplier claim into an approved liability.
Testing includes duplicate delivery, credits, missing receipts, amended orders, and connector failures. We reconcile input counts, successful processing, held cases, and failures. Release timing respects the finance calendar and gives the owner a way to revert or pause the new workflow without losing track of work in progress.
An illustrative engagement
This example describes a proposed engagement, not a measured client result. A multi-site company has a central accounts-payable team. Invoice intake is quick, but staff spend substantial effort asking sites for missing receipts and confirming who can approve an exception.
We design a workflow that reads approved intake documents, matches candidate records, and checks whether the required receipt exists. Missing evidence creates one tracked case with a responsible site contact. The case includes the source identifiers and a clear request, reducing repeated searches and duplicate chasing.
The payment process stays in the existing finance system. Staff approve accounting treatment and resolve exceptions under company policy. The rollout measures whether cases finish faster and whether total finance and site effort falls, including time spent responding to the new requests. A shorter central queue alone does not prove that result.
How we measure value
We compare similar transaction types over representative periods. Measures include preparation effort, manual touches, exception age, reconciliation differences, duplicate records, and the cost of a correctly processed item. We retain the distinction between a proposed match and a reviewed, accepted outcome.
For reporting preparation, we trace totals back to the approved source and compare the effort needed to prepare and verify the pack. Narrative drafting is measured separately from factual accuracy. A fluent explanation cannot compensate for the wrong period, entity, or denominator.
Financial benefits need their own evidence. Faster invoice resolution may improve a service measure without changing cash. Receivables work may affect collection timing without changing revenue. Labour capacity becomes a cost reduction only when management makes a corresponding operating decision. We record assumptions and ask finance to validate the treatment.
Privacy is part of the design where records contain personal information. The OAIC's guidance on commercially available AI explains why intended use, information handling, and oversight need review. Your advisers determine the obligations that apply to the actual workflow.
What your team owns
The handover includes field definitions, source mappings, validation rules, reconciliation checks, exception reasons, and the approval design. We document how to investigate a failed job, replay it safely, correct a proposed record, and confirm that an earlier attempt did not already create it.
The finance owner retains policy and acceptance responsibility. A technical owner maintains connectors and release configuration. Staff receive training using ordinary and difficult cases, including what to do when the system cannot establish a match. Any continuing support or extension to other entities is separately agreed.
Questions before you start
Will AI approve invoices or release payments? The default scope prepares work and routes evidence through approved controls. Payment release, supplier bank changes, and accounting sign-off stay with authorised staff. Any proposal to change authority requires explicit agreement and appropriate specialist review.
Can this reduce back-office staffing? We can assess the work removed and the capacity still needed for close, exceptions, leave, and controls. We connect that evidence to workforce redesign, with employment decisions owned by company leadership.
Can we keep our existing systems? We begin there. The feasibility review checks available interfaces, permissions, and system-owner support. Where inconsistent records are the main constraint, data readiness and integration can be the first delivery step.