Most senior living organizations are already built to handle a high number of invoices, vendors, and transactions, even without accounts payable automation. At the community level, AP workflows tend to evolve organically. Invoices come into a local mailbox, someone reviews them, routes them to the appropriate department head, and eventually they make their way through approval. It works because the people involved understand the flow. They know which invoices go to dining, which go to maintenance, and which need executive oversight. In many cases, there’s very little written structure because it hasn’t been necessary.
The problem starts when that same approach is multiplied across multiple communities. What causes things to break down is variation – specifically, how differently each community handles the same process. What was once a manageable, intuitive process becomes a patchwork of slightly different workflows. One location routes invoices one way, another does it differently, and a third has added its own steps over time. None of these are inherently wrong, but they are inconsistent, and inconsistency is where systems start to struggle.
What ERP Onboarding Reveals About Your AP Process
These inconsistencies usually don’t become obvious until an organization evaluates or implements a new financial system. At that point, what feels like a straightforward process turns into a series of difficult questions. As we guide clients through the implementation process and get to the accounts payable automation portion, we ask, “Who actually approves invoices?”, “How many people are involved in coding, reviewing, and approving?”, “What determines how an invoice is routed?” and other questions for setup. The answers are often unclear or depend heavily on the specific community or even the individual handling the transaction.
Modern ERP systems require defined rules. Routing needs to be based on something concrete like department, location, or role. Approval workflows need to follow a structure that can be configured and repeated. The idea of simply sending an invoice to “whoever makes sense” doesn’t translate to an automated process. This is where organizations begin to feel friction. Not because the system is limiting, but because it is forcing clarity on a process that has never been formally defined.
The Hidden Cost of User Access in AP Workflows
The next issue that surfaces during the onboarding discussion is user access. In many senior living organizations, a large number of people touch the AP process in some way. Department heads review invoices, administrators approve them, and various staff may be involved in coding or handling exceptions. Those actions typically require user access, and that access carries a cost. This often leads organizations to look for alternatives, such as third-party accounts payable automation tools that allow for broader participation without requiring as many full system users.
Those tools can be valuable, but they don’t always address the core issue. In many cases, they are used to preserve an existing process rather than improve it. The underlying workflow – decentralized, loosely defined, and dependent on individual knowledge – remains unchanged.
The Real Challenge Isn’t Accounts Payable Automation Itself. It’s Alignment.
Senior living organizations operate in a decentralized way for good reason. Each community has its own leadership, its own needs, and its own day-to-day realities. On the other hand, financial systems require a level of consistency to function effectively. When those two things are out of sync, AP is often where the tension becomes visible.
Organizations that navigate this successfully will often take a step back before trying to replicate their current process in a new system. Instead of asking how to make the system match what they do today, they ask what the process should look like if it were designed to scale across all communities.
That shift usually leads to a more structured approach. Invoice intake becomes more centralized or standardized. Approval workflows are based on roles rather than individuals. The number of people involved in each transaction is reduced, and responsibilities are more clearly defined. There is still flexibility, but it exists within a framework that the system can support.
Communities still maintain control but go about creating a process that works consistently, regardless of location, and can be supported by the technology in place. As the team, number of locations, and services offered grow, the accounts payable automation makes it possible for your team to scale easily without workflows multiplying and changing.
If you’re curious how this might help your team or have some accounts payable automation or workflow questions, reach out to our team. We prioritize listening first and helping teams use intelligent technology to get the best impact possible.
