Accounts payable automation is no longer simply a question of replacing paper invoices with digital workflows. For finance leaders using NetSuite, the more significant decision is where those workflows should live and how that choice affects efficiency, reporting, audit readiness, and the financial close.
During the Controllers Council and Charted webinar, Evaluating AP Automation: Manual, External, and Native, Joe Alie, CFO at Charted, and Bernardo Enciso, CEO at Charted, examined the three primary approaches organizations take to AP automation. They discussed the strengths and tradeoffs of each model, shared practical benchmarks finance teams can use to evaluate their current processes, and outlined the questions every organization should ask before selecting an AP automation platform.
AP Automation Begins with Architecture
The discussion opened with a reminder that technology decisions should support business outcomes rather than create additional complexity.
As Bernardo Enciso explained, “Business outcomes start with the right architecture.”
Rather than viewing AP automation as a standalone application, the presenters encouraged attendees to consider the broader system architecture behind their finance operations. They defined architecture as the intentional design of where work occurs, where data resides, and how information moves between systems.
Within accounts payable, that includes vendor onboarding, invoice capture, approvals, payment processing, and month end accruals. When those activities become scattered across multiple systems, finance teams often spend additional time reconciling information instead of managing financial operations.
Enciso also encouraged finance leaders to learn from their peers when evaluating new technology.
“The best thing that you can do is speak with your peers.”
Understanding how similar organizations have addressed common AP challenges can provide valuable perspective before making significant system changes.
Three Paths to AP Automation
The webinar compared three common approaches used by NetSuite customers.
Manual Processes
Some organizations continue to rely largely on manual workflows. Vendor invoices arrive by email, information is entered into NetSuite manually, approvals may occur through email, and supporting documentation is often stored separately.
This approach may work for organizations processing only a small number of invoices each month, but manual effort increases quickly as transaction volume grows.
External AP Platforms
The second approach uses a separate AP automation platform connected to NetSuite through integrations.
External solutions frequently automate invoice capture, approvals, OCR, vendor portals, and payment processing. However, they also require information to move continuously between systems.
Enciso noted that although this approach works well under straightforward conditions, complexity increases when organizations manage purchase order revisions, partial receipts, vendor credits, or other exceptions.
“The friction is real.”
As organizations become more sophisticated, maintaining multiple systems can introduce additional reconciliation work, reporting challenges, and dependency on connectors that must remain synchronized.
Native NetSuite Solutions
The third approach places AP automation directly inside NetSuite.
Rather than moving information between applications, every stage of the AP process remains within the ERP, creating a single system of record for invoices, approvals, payments, audit history, and reporting.
According to the presenters, this eliminates many of the operational issues created by maintaining separate applications while preserving complete visibility throughout the transaction lifecycle.
Measuring the Current State
Before evaluating new technology, the speakers recommended establishing objective performance metrics.
Joe Alie highlighted three measurements that quickly reveal the health of an AP operation.
Invoice Processing Cycle Time
Organizations should review a sample of recent invoices and calculate the average number of days between invoice receipt and posting.
According to Alie, “A good, optimized process should take three to five days or less.”
Longer processing times often indicate manual bottlenecks or approval delays.
Cost Per Invoice
Finance teams should also calculate labor costs associated with invoice processing.
An efficient AP organization should generally process invoices for less than three dollars each, while manual environments often incur substantially higher costs because of repetitive administrative work.
Financial Close Duration
Accounts payable directly affects the speed of the monthly close.
Late invoices, missing accruals, vendor corrections, and reconciliation work can all extend closing activities. Organizations with mature AP processes are often able to complete the close in five business days or less.
Understanding AP Maturity
One of the webinar’s most practical resources was an AP maturity framework that helps finance teams evaluate where they currently operate.
The model progresses from manual processes through defined workflows and automated platforms before reaching a fully optimized environment where AP functions operate directly within the ERP.
The presenters emphasized that both external automation platforms and native ERP solutions improve efficiency compared with manual processing. The primary distinction lies in whether finance teams must continually manage multiple systems or operate from a single source of financial information.
Questions Worth Asking Every Vendor
The webinar also encouraged attendees to evaluate vendors beyond product demonstrations.
Among the recommended questions were:
- Does the solution live inside NetSuite or rely on integrations?
- How frequently does information synchronize between systems?
- Where does vendor onboarding occur?
- Where are invoices stored?
- Does the approval history remain inside the ERP?
- Can approval routing change dynamically based on business rules?
- Are payments and remittance records updated in real time?
These questions help finance leaders understand how a solution will function in everyday operations rather than focusing solely on feature lists.
Looking Beyond Automation
Throughout the discussion, the speakers returned to a consistent theme. The objective is not simply to automate invoice processing. The broader goal is creating an AP process that strengthens financial reporting, reduces reconciliation work, improves audit readiness, and shortens the financial close.
Organizations evaluating their current AP environment may find that measuring a few operational benchmarks and examining where work actually occurs provides a clearer picture than comparing software features alone.
As finance teams continue balancing growth with limited resources, thoughtful system design remains one of the most effective ways to improve both efficiency and financial control.
Watch the Full Webinar
To hear the complete discussion and see the AP maturity framework, evaluation checklist, benchmarks, and audience Q&A, watch the full on-demand webinar: https://controllerscouncil.org/events/evaluating-ap-automation-manual-external-and-native/
ABOUT THE SPONSOR:
Charted clears the path for finance teams with AP Automation solutions built directly into your NetSuite environment, providing real-time clarity on every invoice, approval, and payment. Eliminate manual data entry with AI-powered capabilities and automation designed to accelerate your month-end close. Enable the most complex approvals and global, multi-entity workflows. Charted was born from years of hands-on implementation and consulting expertise, bringing you a one-stop- shop for everything NetSuite. Learn more at www.Charted.com
