An AP workflow can pass configuration tests and still leave the team deciding what to do when an invoice cannot continue. A successful implementation defines whether a blocked invoice is held, returned for correction or sent for a business decision, and who owns the next step.
A missing purchase order may be rare in one team and routine in another. An approver may have changed roles; a supplier record may not match the ERP. A one-off needs a clear resolution path. A recurring pattern may require changes to the buying process, data, or workflow.
These design questions also came up in two recent Dynatos AP masterclasses, where participants completed the same maturity check. The ten Dutch participants averaged 23.2/40 and the seven Belgian participants 23.9/40, both within the Automated range. Their answers point to different operational pressures: all ten Dutch participants named a missing purchase order or unclear requester as their main obstacle to straight-through processing. In Belgium, intake and access to requesters were generally well established, but all seven participants said AP still followed up blocked invoices manually; six said they used data for upstream improvement rarely or mainly in response to urgent issues. These small groups offer context for the discussion, not national benchmarks.
Dynatos offers AP automation solutions that support invoice workflows, including routing and resolving recurring exceptions.
Designing around the standard case
Design workshops can overlook local purchasing habits when they focus solely on the intended standard route. A useful design review asks which cases are genuinely unusual and which recur often enough to warrant a defined path.
An invoice without a purchase order may be a genuine exception if it is rare and understood. If a business unit receives them every week, the same queue creates predictable follow-up. A one-off needs a decision; a recurring case may need a different buying route, rule or control.
Before configuration, compare exception frequency, cause and resolution. Keep a route for unusual cases; give recurring work a named owner and decide whether it can be prevented upstream. This avoids automating repeated chasing as standard work.
Assuming data and responsibilities are ready
Supplier records, purchase order references and approval data affect routing and validation. If the invoice queue is where gaps first become visible, AP inherits work it may not have authority to correct.
When a supplier record does not match, AP may see the block but not own the data. The team still has to find the colleague who can correct it.
If an invoice reaches someone who has changed roles, or no one is accountable for the cost, it can sit in the queue while AP searches for an approver. Set a fallback owner for these cases so the team knows where to send the invoice.
Document quality can also contribute to the same problem. An invoice may be captured accurately but still lack the reference needed for validation or posting. Resolving the issue depends on whether the information was missed during capture or never provided.
Testing the workflow, not just the configuration
A functional test confirms that an invoice follows a configured route, but not whether that route works when information is missing, an approver has changed roles, or a transaction falls outside the expected pattern. Test cases should reflect what AP actually handles:
- An invoice arrives without a purchase order or with a reference that does not match the ERP record.
- The assigned approver has left the role or cannot identify the correct cost owner.
- Supporting information is missing, arrives separately or needs manual confirmation.
For each case, check what the system does, who receives the task, whether that person can resolve it and whether AP can see why the invoice is waiting. Also confirm that the assigned person has the information and authority to act. This turns testing into a check of operational readiness, not only a confirmation that the configured workflow runs.
An invoice that has been exchanged successfully may still need to be matched, approved and posted before processing is complete.
Keeping the workflow useful as volumes grow
Normal volumes show whether exceptions recur, approval routes are missing, or supplier data blocks processing. Review patterns with AP and relevant owners to decide what to change.
Resolving each invoice matters, but repeating the same correction leaves the next invoice exposed to the same delay.
Some invoice exceptions originate before the invoice arrives, when a purchase commitment is made without being recorded or approved.
Make recurring exceptions visible and actionable
A successful AP automation implementation helps AP identify what blocks invoices, assign issues to someone who can resolve them, and spot repeat work.
Not every exception should be removed. A rare case needs a decision path; a repeated one needs a closer look at the cause and the owner.
Before sign-off, walk through the exceptions AP sees most often. For each, confirm the next action, who can act and what happens if the case remains unresolved. Planning an AP Automation project? If you are planning an AP Automation project, Dynatos can help you assess where recurring exceptions arise and how they should be handled.
