Add news
March 2010 April 2010 May 2010 June 2010 July 2010
August 2010
September 2010 October 2010 November 2010 December 2010 January 2011 February 2011 March 2011 April 2011 May 2011 June 2011 July 2011 August 2011 September 2011 October 2011 November 2011 December 2011 January 2012 February 2012 March 2012 April 2012 May 2012 June 2012 July 2012 August 2012 September 2012 October 2012 November 2012 December 2012 January 2013 February 2013 March 2013 April 2013 May 2013 June 2013 July 2013 August 2013 September 2013 October 2013 November 2013 December 2013 January 2014 February 2014 March 2014 April 2014 May 2014 June 2014 July 2014 August 2014 September 2014 October 2014 November 2014 December 2014 January 2015 February 2015 March 2015 April 2015 May 2015 June 2015 July 2015 August 2015 September 2015 October 2015 November 2015 December 2015 January 2016 February 2016 March 2016 April 2016 May 2016 June 2016 July 2016 August 2016 September 2016 October 2016 November 2016 December 2016 January 2017 February 2017 March 2017 April 2017 May 2017 June 2017 July 2017 August 2017 September 2017 October 2017 November 2017 December 2017 January 2018 February 2018 March 2018 April 2018 May 2018 June 2018 July 2018 August 2018 September 2018 October 2018 November 2018 December 2018 January 2019 February 2019 March 2019 April 2019 May 2019 June 2019 July 2019 August 2019 September 2019 October 2019 November 2019 December 2019 January 2020 February 2020 March 2020 April 2020 May 2020 June 2020 July 2020 August 2020 September 2020 October 2020 November 2020 December 2020 January 2021 February 2021 March 2021 April 2021 May 2021 June 2021 July 2021 August 2021 September 2021 October 2021 November 2021 December 2021 January 2022 February 2022 March 2022 April 2022 May 2022 June 2022 July 2022 August 2022 September 2022 October 2022 November 2022 December 2022 January 2023 February 2023 March 2023 April 2023 May 2023 June 2023 July 2023 August 2023 September 2023 October 2023 November 2023 December 2023 January 2024 February 2024 March 2024 April 2024 May 2024 June 2024 July 2024 August 2024 September 2024 October 2024 November 2024 December 2024 January 2025 February 2025 March 2025 April 2025 May 2025 June 2025 July 2025 August 2025 September 2025 October 2025 November 2025 December 2025 January 2026 February 2026
1 2 3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
News Every Day |

The CFO Checklist for Data Readiness in Automation Projects

When it comes to B2B payments, simple doesn’t exist. And it’s not for lack of trying.

These transactions involve multiple stakeholders, negotiated terms, regulatory requirements and legacy systems that have been layered one on top of another for decades, many of them promising greater efficiency while paradoxically increasing complexity. The result can frequently be a kaleidoscope of invoice formats, payment contracts and approval chains that leave chief financial officers (CFOs) feeling dizzy.

And while the B2B payment automation capabilities across both accounts receivable (AR) and accounts payable (AP) solutions have progressed rapidly, many organizations discover, often painfully, that automation does not magically resolve inefficiency. Instead, it has a tendency to amplify whatever already exists beneath the surface.

At a conceptual level, B2B payment and AP/AR automation might seem straightforward. A paper invoice becomes a digital file, while a human approval becomes a rule-based workflow and, ultimately, a manual payout becomes an automated transfer.

The problem that often rears its head, however, is that automation systems do not “understand” payments in the way people, particularly trained AP and AR staff, do. Automated and AI-driven AP/AR systems rely entirely on the data they are given, such as vendor IDs, payment terms, bank account numbers, tax classifications and approval hierarchies to execute instructions precisely as coded.

For CFOs looking to optimize or even monetize their B2B payments, this means data quality is not a secondary consideration in payments transformation, but the determining factor in whether automation delivers real value or simply accelerates mistakes.

See also: Why Messy Merchant Data Could Make B2B Payments More Expensive 

Why B2B Payments Break When Data Isn’t Built Right

The prevailing narrative around B2B payments innovation still leans heavily on front-end experience: faster rails, real-time settlement and API-driven integrations. These matter, but they are downstream benefits. Upstream, beneath every successful transaction, sits a data model that must withstand complexity, scrutiny and dynamic operational pressures. In B2B, data is not descriptive but determinative.

After all, while in consumer payments imperfections are often absorbed by convenience, in B2B payments, there is no such margin for error. By the time funds are released, the average B2B payment has become a condensed representation of many prior decisions. If any part of that representation is ambiguous or incomplete, the transaction becomes unresolvable without manual intervention.

Many companies tend to treat data cleanup as a preliminary step to complete before the “real” work project of AP/AR automation begins. This framing may prove for many finance functions to be misleading. In B2B payments, data is infrastructure. It underpins every transaction, every control, every report; and just like physical infrastructure, it requires design, investment and maintenance.

None of this suggests that AP/AR automation is misguided. Due to the volume and complexity of modern B2B payments, it is becoming increasingly necessarily as manual processing and paper-based B2B payments become a drag on growth and leave capital on the table. But transformation sequencing matters, and organizations that invest in automation before stabilizing their data foundations can often find themselves rebuilding systems under pressure.

See also: How Payments Automation Helps CFOs Keep Up With Their Own Data 

Want to Automate B2B Payments? Fix Your Data First

The most consequential work in payments transformation often happens before the first workflow is automated, in the unglamorous task of reconciling records, defining standards and enforcing consistency. That’s because, when AP/AR workflows are automated without first addressing data structures, they can accelerate the spread of errors rather than reducing them. An incorrect bank account number that once caused a single failed payment can, in an automated system, disrupt dozens of transactions before anyone intervenes.

CFOs eyeing a digital transformation of their B2B payments are increasingly faced with a key question: if AP or AR automation were enabled today, would their best people be freed to manage exceptions, or reassigned to explain why the system can’t?

Five buckets of B2B payment data — counterparty identification, invoice matching, cash application status, exception management and intake reliability — are worth watching.

Automation, after all, fails first at the counterparty level. Vendor and customer records must be unique, stable and governed. Names are not identifiers, and bank details, payment terms, tax status and legal-entity mappings must be complete and validated upstream. When master data is “fixed later,” automation simply scales the error.

Matching exposes the same weakness. Whether two-way, three-way or contract-based, invoices must resolve without human interpretation. Invoice numbers, PO references, amounts and currencies must be consistent and machine-readable. If matching relies on PDFs, emails or judgment calls, automation just creates exception queues.

Read more: Structured Data at the Center of CFO’s Forecasting Revolution

State ambiguity is another failure point. “Approved,” “scheduled,” “sent,” “settled” and “applied” must be explicit, and irreversible once reached. When teams override or reinterpret statuses, reporting integrity and cash forecasting degrade.

At the same time, B2B payment exceptions are often resolved but rarely classified. Automation demands taxonomy. Duplicate invoices, pricing disputes, missing references, partial payments and short pays must be distinct in data, because without structured categories the root causes may stay hidden and gains are likely to stall.

The final test is where discipline is enforced. If incomplete or incorrect invoices and remittances are accepted and corrected later, automation will fail quietly but incontrovertibly. Required fields, validation rules and rejection logic must operate at intake, from vendor submission in AP to remittance receipt in AR.

The best part, however, is that this is already happening across the B2B space.

“You’re starting to see a lot more sophistication when it comes to that dialogue between buyers and suppliers,” Daniel Artin, head of strategic partnerships at Boost Payment Solutions, told PYMNTS last month, adding that faster payment terms, better data and fairer economics are aligning interests in ways that were rare even a few years ago.

“Those companies that do it right are starting to see benefits by using digital payments as a strategic tool,” Artin said.

For all PYMNTS B2B coverage, subscribe to the daily B2B Newsletter.

The post The CFO Checklist for Data Readiness in Automation Projects appeared first on PYMNTS.com.

Ria.city






Read also

Key Information – Basingstoke Town (A)

Loophole could let citizens hit ICE agents with barrage of lawsuits: expert

Super Bowl scams surge in February and target your data

News, articles, comments, with a minute-by-minute update, now on Today24.pro

Today24.pro — latest news 24/7. You can add your news instantly now — here




Sports today


Новости тенниса


Спорт в России и мире


All sports news today





Sports in Russia today


Новости России


Russian.city



Губернаторы России









Путин в России и мире







Персональные новости
Russian.city





Friends of Today24

Музыкальные новости

Персональные новости