Revolutionising accounts payable: AI-driven email extraction cuts costs and boosts efficiency

Advanced AI platforms like Rossum are transforming AP invoice processing by automatically extracting data from emails and attachments, promising significant cost savings and operational efficiencies for organisations handling high invoice volumes.

Your accounts payable inbox is not merely a message queue; it is a repository of processable financial data that, if left manual, costs organisations time, cash and supplier goodwill. According to a blog post by Rossum, vendor...

s routinely bury invoice-critical information across email subject lines, message bodies, attachments and follow-up correspondence, forcing AP teams to retype data the vendor already supplied. That “double handling” creates bottlenecks, missed discounts and error-driven rework that automation can largely eliminate.

Email data extraction, as described by Rossum, uses machine learning, natural language processing and OCR to monitor an AP mailbox in real time, classify incoming messages (invoice submission, PO confirmation, remittance advice, payment inquiry) and extract structured invoice fields, vendor name, invoice number, dates, line items, tax and payment terms, whether those appear in a PDF attachment or embedded plain text. The extracted records are validated, matched to vendor master and purchase orders, and delivered to the ERP via API connectors, with confidence scores and exception routing for low‑certainty fields. Rossum’s material stresses the control benefits of linking corrective email threads to invoice records and shelving disputed items until a revised invoice or credit note arrives, preserving audit trails and preventing ad hoc changes to financial records.

The financial case is straightforward. Rossum cites industry benchmarks showing manual processing costs of roughly $12–$26 per invoice and estimates that a high-volume operation receiving 5,000 emailed invoices monthly can spend hundreds of thousands to millions annually on labour alone; missed early-payment discounts add further, measurable losses. Automated extraction shortens processing cycles, from days to hours or minutes, reduces error rates and scales without linearly increasing headcount. Rossum recommends pilots covering 20–30% of volume, phased rollouts and vendor onboarding rules (a dedicated AP email address; PDF-first guidance) to maximise extraction accuracy and throughput.

Independent vendors and analysts echo and expand that picture. DataExtractorAI says its engine can cut processing time by up to 90% and achieve very high accuracy, its marketing material claims 99.5%, and suggests cost savings of up to 80% with minimal model training. Parseur and Bill.com likewise highlight error reduction, faster processing and secure integration with ERPs and cloud mail systems; Bill.com reports survey-based reductions in errors for a large proportion of customers following AP automation. TechBullion frames the adoption in competitive terms, noting the ability of AI extraction to handle high volumes during peaks, to support multi-format input and to feed automated dashboards that improve cash‑flow decision making.

Outsourced and hybrid delivery models reach a similar conclusion from a different angle. CASO Document Management offers a BPO approach that centralises both mail and email intake and leverages automated extraction to increase throughput, improve compliance and accelerate vendor communications; a construction-sector case study cited by CASO describes immediate gains in accuracy and process control. Invedus’s case study for a US logistics client shows how structured intake and same‑day processing of transaction documents can materially improve operational liquidity.

Technically, modern platforms combine several capabilities that organisations should evaluate: secure integrations to Microsoft 365, Google Workspace or Exchange; pre-built connectors to major ERPs such as SAP, Oracle, NetSuite and Microsoft Dynamics; robust OCR for scanned and image‑based invoices; multilingual support; role‑based access and audit logging; and SOC‑level security controls. Rossum and other suppliers claim extraction accuracy in the mid‑90s for standard invoices and promote confidence scoring plus human‑in‑the‑loop review to catch anomalies. Vendors differ on language support, speed of implementation and the extent of pre‑trained models versus custom training; buyers should request proof‑of‑concept tests with their actual vendor emails before committing.

Practical implementation guidance repeated across these sources includes concentrating first on the highest‑volume, most standardised vendors; setting up a dedicated AP inbox and communicating it to suppliers; providing format guidance (PDF over photos where feasible); and tracking exception causes to drive continuous improvement. Measurement should centre on processing time per invoice, extraction accuracy, manual intervention rates and realised early‑payment discounts; Rossum suggests organisations typically see exceptions fall from 20–30% during early rollout to single‑digit percentages as the system matures, and vendors claim payback within 6–12 months for mid‑to‑high‑volume operations.

There are limits and caveats. OCR accuracy degrades on poor‑quality scans or messy handwriting; natural language extraction struggles where vendors use inconsistent or idiosyncratic email formats; and no system is entirely “set and forget”, confidence scoring, exception workflows and vendor onboarding remain necessary. Security, retention and audit requirements must be defined up front: Rossum notes that extraction platforms normally preserve original emails for audit while pushing structured copies into the ERP, and Bill.com and others emphasise encryption and role‑based controls.

For AP leaders the imperative is operational and financial. Email remains the default submission channel across industries; treating it as an unmanaged inbox implicitly accepts labour costs, variability and lost discounts. Industry vendors and case studies show that automating the email-to-ERP data path reduces manual entry, tightens controls, speeds approvals and frees teams to focus on validation, exception resolution and supplier relationships. Measured pilots, vendor validation with real inbox samples, clear vendor communication and a phased rollout are the pragmatic route from a mailbox full of trapped value to an integrated, auditable AP intake process.

Source: Noah Wire Services