Automation for Peppol
Post go-live optimisation that turns your e-invoicing pipeline into a true automation lever. Three-way matching, approval workflows, exception handling, and supplier onboarding. The goal is hands-off AP processing.
- Package
- Automation
- Price
- From €4,500/month
- Notes
- Retainer. 6-month minimum. Final rate depends on transaction volume and ERP complexity.
Who this is for. And who it isn't for.
Good fit
- Finance teams that have gone live on Peppol and want to compound the win across AP and AR.
- AP shared-service leads drowning in exceptions because matching rules were never tuned after go-live.
- CFOs who see the go-live as step one and want measurable AP cycle-time and FTE impact.
- Mid-market and enterprise companies where supplier behaviour varies wildly across the long tail.
Not a fit
- Companies that have not yet gone live on Peppol (see Implementation first).
- Single-entity businesses with fewer than 200 invoices per month. The ROI on a retainer does not justify the cost.
- Teams looking for a one-off engagement. Automation is iterative and requires sustained attention.
Deliverables. What you get.
Matching rule optimisation
We audit and retune three-way matching tolerances across invoice lines, goods receipts, and purchase orders. Freight-cost variance, quantity rounding, and tax-line mismatches are the usual suspects.
Exception triage and reduction
Systematic analysis of exception queues. We classify root causes, eliminate false positives, and build escalation paths that keep the AP team focused on genuine issues.
Approval workflow redesign
Rework approval routing to eliminate duplicate effort between AP and cost-centre owners. Clear RACI, threshold-based auto-approval, and mobile-friendly approval flows.
Supplier onboarding (long tail)
Structured onboarding programme for the supplier long tail. Template communications, follow-up cadences, and Peppol registration support for suppliers who are not yet electronic.
KPI dashboard and reporting
Monthly KPI dashboard tracking auto-match rate, AP cycle days, exception rate, and FTE reallocation. Trendlines, targets, and commentary included.
Case study. French industrial group, post go-live.
Anonymised customer profile. Names and figures changed. Company details available on request under NDA.
The situation
A French industrial group with approximately 1,200 staff went live on Peppol six months ago. The technical pipeline works. Invoices flow. But the AP team is drowning in exceptions. Matching rules were configured at go-live and never revisited. Supplier behaviour varies wildly across the long tail. The AP shared-service lead is spending more time on exception handling than before the go-live.
The CFO expected automation gains by now. Instead, the team is handling more manual work than before because every variance triggers an exception. The pipeline is live but the process is not optimised.
What an Automation engagement covers for this profile
In an Automation engagement for this profile we would start with a baseline assessment of current auto-match rates, AP cycle time, exception volume, and FTE allocation. The baseline typically reveals that matching tolerances are set too tight and that the exception queue is dominated by a small number of systematic root causes.
We would retune matching rules against historical invoice data, reclassify the exception queue by root cause, and redesign approval routing to eliminate the duplicate handoffs between the AP team and cost-centre owners. In parallel, we would launch a structured supplier onboarding programme for the long tail that never completed the transition to electronic invoicing.
A monthly KPI dashboard tracks auto-match rate, AP cycle days, exception rate, and FTE reallocation against agreed targets. The dashboard is the single source of truth for the CFO.
What commonly goes sideways
For a profile like this, the most common issues we would address in the engagement include:
- Matching tolerances too tight
- Three-way matching tolerance was set too tight at go-live. Every freight-cost variance becomes an exception. The AP team spends hours on variances that should auto-clear.
- Supplier long tail incomplete
- Supplier onboarding never finished the long tail. Hundreds of low-volume suppliers still send PDFs or paper. Each one generates manual work that erodes the automation gains.
- Approval workflow duplication
- Approval-workflow rules duplicate work between the AP team and cost-centre owners. Both sides review the same invoices. No clear RACI. Cycle time inflates without adding control.
The engagement outcome
In an engagement for this profile we would target an auto-match rate above 92% within six months, up from the ~50% observed at baseline. AP cycle time typically drops 60-70%. The AP shared-service lead gets 1.5 to 2.5 FTE back for higher-value work. The KPI dashboard gives the CFO a clear, monthly view of the return on the automation investment.
Indicative outcomes
- end-to-end processing time
- AP cycle time −60–70%
- From invoice receipt to payment posting. Driven by matching rule optimisation and approval workflow redesign.
- typical, up from ~50%
- 92%+ auto-match
- Three-way match rate for PO-based invoices. The ceiling depends on supplier behaviour and invoice complexity.
- reallocated to higher-value work
- 1.5–2.5 FTE
- AP staff freed from exception handling and manual matching. Redeployed to vendor management, cash-flow analysis, or process improvement.
Sample deliverable
Not sure if automation is the right next step?
15 minutes with a senior e-invoicing expert. Walk through your post go-live situation and get an honest recommendation on whether an Automation engagement makes sense for your AP team.
Hosted by Tom Van Asbroeck
Peppol & tax expert
Process. How we run it.
Month 1
Baseline assessment
Measure current auto-match rate, AP cycle time, exception volume, and FTE allocation. Define target KPIs.
Month 1–2
Matching rule optimisation
Audit matching tolerances, retune thresholds, and test against historical invoice data. Deploy updated rules to production.
Month 2–3
Exception triage
Classify the exception queue by root cause. Eliminate systematic false positives. Build escalation paths and owner assignments.
Month 3–4
Workflow redesign
Rework approval routing, threshold-based auto-approval, and cost-centre owner assignments. Test and deploy.
Month 3–6
Supplier long-tail onboarding
Launch structured onboarding programme for remaining manual suppliers. Template communications, follow-up tracking, and Peppol registration support.
Ongoing
Continuous optimisation
Monthly KPI review, rule refinement, and ongoing exception analysis. Iterate until targets are sustained.
Investment. Format and pricing.
From €4,500/month
Retainer. 6-month minimum. Final rate depends on transaction volume and ERP complexity.
Related packages
Often comes with
Operations SupportOperations Support
Day-to-day operational support. Inbox monitoring, PDF conversion oversight, receipt retrieval, and dispute follow-up when things go off-script.
Often preceded by
ImplementationImplementation
End-to-end pipeline setup. Peppol registration, format mapping, ERP integration, test cycles, and supervised go-live.
FAQ. Frequently asked questions.
Do we need to be live on Peppol first?
How quickly will we see results?
What auto-match rate is realistic?
Will you work inside our ERP?
What happens after the 6-month minimum?
Can you onboard suppliers who refuse to go electronic?
Discuss on a discovery call.
30 minutes with a co-founder or senior e-invoicing expert. You leave the call with a clear next step. Tailored proposal in your inbox within 48 hours.
Vendor-neutral. No obligation to switch platforms.
Hosted by Tom Van Asbroeck
Peppol & tax expert