Executives and Finance leaders face too many vendors. Claims overlap. Integration needs are unclear.
The repetitive work lives outside QuickBooks, Xero, and Sage. Invoice ingestion. Statement reconciliation. Month-end checklists. Exception handling.
This is where automation software helps. But which solution fits your needs? Your workflows? Your data sources? Your risk level?
That's where independent advice helps.
What leadership must decide before automating
Invoice variability: Are invoices consistent enough for straight-through processing, or will exceptions dominate?
Control vs speed: Where must approvals, segregation of duties, and audit trails be enforced?
Data quality tolerance: What error rate is acceptable before manual review is triggered?
System integration risk: How tightly should ingestion connect to the general ledger versus staging layers?
What determines whether reconciliation actually reduces risk
Matching complexity: Are simple one-to-one matches sufficient, or are many-to-many scenarios common?
Source reliability: Which statements are authoritative when discrepancies appear?
Exception handling discipline: How are breaks investigated, resolved, and documented?
Timing dependencies: What upstream delays prevent timely reconciliation?
What matters more than closing faster
Dependency mapping: Which close tasks block others, and which are assumed but undocumented?
Judgment vs automation: Which activities can be automated safely, and which require human review?
Control integrity: How are accruals, adjustments, and intercompany entries validated?
Consistency across periods: How do changes in process affect comparability month to month?
Accountability: Who owns the close when timelines slip or numbers change late?
Automated workflows should handle repetitive work. They should not create new problems.
Integration needs matter. Exception handling matters. Audit trails matter.
Good accounting automation software does several things:
Industry research shows automation can reduce manual work by 50-80%. But real results vary. The challenge? Figuring out which solutions actually deliver. And which ones create more work. See evaluation criteria →
The principles that guide effective data science work apply directly to accounting automation. Both disciplines share the same foundations:
This is why accounting automation sits within a broader data strategy. At sufficient scale, invoice and transaction volumes create classic big data conditions that require deliberate management, not isolated process improvements.
Before recommending any automation solution, the assessment phase identifies where data science opportunities exist — and where risks lie.
This includes evaluating data quality, understanding integration complexity, assessing exception handling requirements, and identifying patterns that could benefit from advanced analytics or machine learning approaches.
Only after these factors — and the risks involved — are clearly understood should any automation solution be recommended. The goal is sustainable automation that delivers value, not technology for its own sake.
Most organisations already generate far more data than they actively use.
The challenge is not collecting more data — it's identifying which existing data assets can meaningfully improve decisions, performance, and outcomes.
Independent data strategy focuses on surfacing value that is already present but fragmented across systems, teams, and processes.
Identifying growth opportunities hidden in operational data
Revenue insights often sit outside sales reports and dashboards. They emerge when operational, behavioural, and transactional data are viewed together.
Examples include:
Key question:
Which existing data signals point to untapped or at-risk revenue across the business?
Improving customer experience through data already in the business
Customer experience issues are often visible long before they appear in complaints or churn metrics. Signals typically exist across operational systems, support processes, and transactional records.
Examples include:
Key question:
What patterns in existing data reveal where customer experience is breaking down?
Reducing organisational drag hidden in process data
Time loss is rarely caused by one large inefficiency. It accumulates through small delays, dependencies, and manual handoffs that are poorly visible.
Examples include:
Key question:
Where is time being lost today because data and processes are misaligned?
Hidden value is rarely found by adding new tools. It is uncovered by understanding how existing data flows — and where it silently constrains decisions.
Most finance teams face similar problems when looking at automation software. Understanding these challenges helps you avoid common mistakes.
Every vendor claims 99% accuracy. Every demo looks perfect. But real performance varies widely. Testing with your actual documents reveals the truth. Not vendor demos with clean samples.
Software costs are clear. Integration costs are not. IT time. Workflow changes. User training. Exception handling setup. These costs often exceed the software price. But vendors don't highlight them upfront.
Automation reveals data problems. Duplicate supplier names. Inconsistent naming. Missing codes. These issues break automation. SAICA and other professional bodies emphasise data quality as a foundation for reliable financial reporting. Some finance teams spend months cleaning data before automation delivers value.
Technology is easier than people. Staff resist new workflows. Approvers ignore automated alerts. Exception queues pile up. Training helps. But ongoing support matters more. Someone needs to own the automated workflows.
A structured approach reduces risk and improves outcomes. Follow these steps before committing.
Track how much time current processes take. Count invoice processing hours. Count reconciliation hours. Measure error rates. Document exception handling time. Without accurate baseline data, ROI claims cannot be validated.
Write down what the software must do. Not what features it should have. Focus on outcomes. "Reduce invoice processing time by 15 hours per week" is a requirement. "AI-powered OCR" is a feature. Requirements drive selection. Features drive marketing.
Vendor demos use clean sample data. Real invoices are messier. Supplier names vary. Invoice formats differ. Line items are inconsistent. Upload 50 actual invoices during evaluation. Check OCR accuracy. Review exception handling. Measure manual correction needed.
Software price is only part of total cost. Add setup fees. Add training time. Add IT support needs. Add ongoing maintenance. Add staff time for exception handling. Model costs at current volume. Model costs at 50% growth. Model costs at 100% growth.
Automation needs ongoing attention. Exception queues need daily checks. Approval workflows need periodic review. OCR accuracy drops when supplier formats change. Integration breaks when accounting systems upgrade. Assign ownership before launch. Not after problems appear.
10+ Years Experience
Deep expertise in technology with a focus on data products and data strategy.
8+ Industries Served
Experience across diverse business contexts and requirements.
100% Vendor Independent
No partnerships. No commissions. No vendor bias.
Evaluating automation software is complex. Integration needs. Exception handling. Data quality. Vendor lock-in.
There's a lot to think about.
Independent advice helps cut through vendor claims. It helps you focus on what matters for your situation. Learn more about the advisory approach →
No sales pitch. No vendor partnership. No commission. Just clear guidance based on your needs.
The first step is understanding your current state. What processes take the most time? Where do errors occur? What systems do you use? What data sources exist?
This phase typically takes 2-3 weeks. It includes interviews with staff. Review of current workflows. Analysis of document volumes. Assessment of data quality.
Based on the assessment, you receive clear recommendations. What to automate first. Which solutions fit your needs. What risks to watch. What costs to expect.
The output is a written report. No jargon. No sales speak. Just clear guidance you can act on. Or question. Or challenge. It's your decision to make.
If you decide to proceed, you may want help evaluating vendors. This includes defining evaluation criteria. Reviewing vendor demos. Testing with real data.
Independent evaluation means no preference for any vendor. The goal is finding the right fit. Not the vendor with the best marketing. Or the biggest commission.
Some clients want ongoing support. Quarterly reviews. Exception monitoring. Performance tracking. Governance checks.
This is optional. Not required. The goal is making sure automation continues to deliver value. And catching problems before they become serious.
In more mature environments, organisations want to connect finance data with supply chain and marketing signals. This reduces delay between operations and finance.
Flag demand spikes before they affect stock and cash. Know what's coming. Not after the fact.
Find margin loss driven by logistics or promotions. See the impact before it hits your P&L.
Know when operational issues will show up in month-end results. React early. Not after the close.
These capabilities need strong data foundations and governance. Independent advice helps organisations decide when this level of integration makes sense. And when it doesn't. Not every company needs this. But for those that do, getting the foundations right matters more than the technology. Before investing in advanced analytics, leaders should understand [what AI readiness actually means](/data-strategy/ai-readiness-advanced-analytics/) at an executive level.