Invoice automation: test the economics before signing.
Prepared · Hypothetical mid-market buyer
This fictional quote demonstrates how a proposal review examines costs, vendor claims, and the evidence to request before signing. Quote amounts, document references, and vendor claims are invented for this example.
DELEGATE: Ask the Controller and IT lead for a fixed-scope pilot and a complete recurring-cost schedule before approving the rollout.
Original quote: $140,000 upfront
| Item | Quoted amount | What is missing? |
|---|---|---|
| Implementation & configuration | $60,000 | Acceptance criteria |
| ERP connector | $45,000 | Supported versions & writeback scope |
| Workflow setup & training | $35,000 | Exception handling & handover |
| Upfront total | $140,000 | Recurring platform and usage costs excluded |
Risks and evidence
- Unproven accuracy. Fictional demo note D-01 claims “90% automation” but contains no test set or exception definition. Request results on buyer-selected invoices, including correction time.
- Incomplete first-year cost. Q-01 excludes platform charges, usage overages, and internal support. The $140,000 upfront total is not a total-cost estimate.
- Integration uncertainty. Q-01 names an ERP connector without supported-version or writeback details. Require a sandbox demonstration with reconciliation and rollback.
- Exit risk. Fictional scope S-01 does not describe export formats, termination assistance, or deletion. Confirm those terms in writing.
Recommended next action
The Controller owns a representative pilot dataset and measures accuracy, correction time, and cost per completed invoice. IT validates access controls and integration. Set go/no-go thresholds before testing and request a separate, capped pilot quote; no pilot price is assumed here.
Alternative to evaluate
Compare configuration of the current accounting system plus human-reviewed extraction against the full platform. Do not assume the lighter option is sufficient until the same acceptance criteria have been tested.
Decision still open
No approval or rejection is warranted from these fictional materials alone. Obtain the missing evidence, compare full costs, and document the result before committing.
Method reference: NIST AI Risk Management Framework. This supports risk assessment, not the invented quote figures. A real review would cite the actual documents supplied and state what could not be verified.