Question 1

What are the most common invoice handling problems in accounts payable and how can they be resolved?

Accepted Answer

Accounts payable teams consistently struggle with a core set of invoice handling problems that erode efficiency and create financial risk. Slow internal invoice approvals remain the most cited challenge, often caused by unclear approval hierarchies, absent approvers, or manual routing processes. Invoices arriving without a purchase order number or requisitioner name are difficult to route and frequently delay payment. Invoices sent to the wrong person or department may sit unactioned for weeks. Duplicate invoice submissions—often from the same vendor using multiple channels—create the risk of duplicate payment if AP lacks effective detection controls. Invoices missing required information stall the three-way matching process. Each problem has practical solutions: centralized invoice receipt points, vendor communication campaigns, automated duplicate detection, and approval escalation procedures. Addressing even the top two or three high-frequency issues can meaningfully reduce payment cycle times, lower duplicate payment rates, and create conditions where early payment discounts become achievable rather than routinely missed.

Question 2

How can AP departments reduce duplicate invoice submissions and prevent duplicate payments from occurring?

Accepted Answer

Duplicate invoice submissions are one of the most costly and persistent accounts payable challenges. Vendors often submit invoices through multiple channels simultaneously—email, mail, and portal—without realizing each submission may be treated as a separate document. AP teams can reduce duplicates at the source by establishing a single preferred receipt channel, communicating it clearly to all vendors, and flagging documents received through alternate routes. Internally, duplicate detection controls should compare incoming invoices against existing records on vendor number, invoice number, invoice date, and amount—flagging exact and near-matches for human review. Second invoices with different invoice numbers, a common vendor tactic when the original appears unpaid, require workflow rules that cross-reference vendor and amount against open items. When duplicates result in duplicate payments, a structured recovery process—including vendor credit memos and self-audit programs—can recapture funds. Third-party duplicate payment audits are also widely used, particularly after system conversions or periods of high volume.

Question 3

Why are early payment discounts so often lost in accounts payable and how can this problem be fixed?

Accepted Answer

Early payment discounts—typically terms like 2/10 net 30, offering a 2% discount if paid within 10 days—represent significant savings that many AP departments consistently fail to capture. Root causes are usually process-related: invoices that arrive late due to misdirected submission, take multiple days to route through approval, or sit in a queue awaiting data entry frequently exhaust their discount window before payment is authorized. The first fix is visibility: AP needs a real-time view of invoices currently within their discount windows and their approval status. Automation that triggers urgent routing notifications when a discount-eligible invoice enters the queue helps prioritize approvals. A fast-track approval lane for discount-eligible invoices, separate from standard payment runs, is a proven tactic. Analyzing the annualized return of capturing discounts—2/10 net 30 equates to approximately 36% annualized—builds the business case for process investment. Capturing even a modest percentage of currently missed discounts can generate returns far exceeding the cost of the workflow changes required.

Question 4

What are best practices for managing and reducing rush check and rush payment requests in accounts payable?

Accepted Answer

Rush payment requests are a symptom of upstream process failures—late invoice submission, missed payment runs, or approval delays—and managing them well requires both tactical controls and root cause analysis. Tactically, AP should establish a formal rush payment policy defining what qualifies as a legitimate rush, who is authorized to request one, and whether an administrative fee will be charged. Charging even a nominal fee per rush request dramatically reduces volume by making the cost of poor planning visible to requestors. All rush requests should be tracked by department, requester, and reason—this data identifies chronic offenders and systemic issues driving the volume. For payment delivery, having multiple mechanism options (ACH same-day, wire transfer, or check) with clear lead times helps AP meet genuine urgency without defaulting to manual check cutting. Long-term, eliminating the conditions that generate rush requests—improving invoice receipt timeliness, automating approvals, and enforcing submission deadlines—is the only sustainable path to reducing rush payment volume.

Question 5

How should accounts payable handle invoices that arrive without a purchase order number or required information?

Accepted Answer

Invoices arriving without a purchase order number, requisitioner name, or other required fields present a common but manageable AP challenge. The most effective solution combines a vendor-facing policy with an internal escalation process. On the vendor side, AP should communicate clear invoice formatting requirements—ideally in vendor agreements and periodic communications—specifying that invoices missing required fields will be returned unpaid. A return-to-sender process, where non-compliant invoices are promptly sent back with a written explanation, creates accountability and trains vendors over time. Internally, AP should avoid manually researching missing information on every invoice, as this consumes significant staff time and implicitly rewards sloppy vendor practices. For high-value or strategic vendors where strict return policies are impractical, a designated resolution workflow routing the invoice to the most likely internal owner serves as a controlled exception. Tracking the volume of returned or escalated invoices identifies which vendors require additional training or tighter contractual invoice requirements.

Invoice Handling Best Practices and Problem Resolution

Purchase Options

Recorded Webinar Only

All Access Membership

Mary Schaeffer

HRCI Credit

SHRM Credit

ATATX Credit

Webinar Survey Overall Rating

Average rating

4.8 / 5

Reviews From Webinar Survey

5.0 / 5

5.0 / 5

4.4 / 5

Frequently Asked Questions