BizBlocz
Finance Collections & Dunning AR02
Operations reference

Finance: Collections & Dunning

You own this process. What the work is and where its difficulty sits — then how much better it could run, who can run it, where AI fits, and how to choose.

The short answer

8-step finance work whose binding step is negotiating payment plans — the part you can’t fully automate away. Best-fit AI is ML / Predictive (~35%); best-in-class teams reach ≤30 days top-quartile dso.

Tasks
8
The bottleneck
negotiating payment plans
Improvement potential
≤30 days · Top-quartile DSO
Best-fit AI
ML / Predictive · 35%
01
Section 01 / 05
Overview · understand the work

What the work actually is

Collections and dunning turns overdue receivables into cash: it sets collections policy and escalation rules, segments and prioritizes the AR aging by risk, value, and payment behavior, runs automated dunning sequences across email, SMS, portal, and letter, predicts payment propensity and flags high-risk accounts, negotiates payment plans and records promise-to-pay, escalates unresolved accounts to internal teams or agencies, processes adjustments, disputes, and write-off recommendations, and reports on DSO and collector performance.

Inputs · documents in
Customer master & credit file (limits, terms)AR aging report (open invoices by bucket)Payment & dispute history per accountCollections policy & escalation matrix
Outputs · documents out
Dunning correspondence (email / SMS / letter)Promise-to-pay / payment-plan agreementWrite-off & adjustment recommendationDSO / aging / collections-performance report
Volume
high
Risk / control
moderate
Shape of the work
Mostly rule based · gated by people

The 8 tasks — the nature of each, and the oversight it needs

Tag each task in plain terms — what kind of work it is and how hands-off it can run — before any mention of AI. The kind of work is what later decides which tool, if any, fits.

Naturerule-basedreadingpredictingjudgingpeople / hands-on
01
Establish and maintain collections policies and escalation rules
setting collections policyapproves
02
Segment and prioritize AR aging buckets by risk, value, and payment behavior
prioritizing accountsunattended
03
Execute automated payment reminder and dunning sequences (email, SMS, portal, letter)
running dunning sequencesunattended
04
Predict customer payment propensity and flag high-risk accounts
predicting payment riskunattended
05
Negotiate payment plans and record promise-to-pay commitmentsthe bottleneck
negotiating payment plansperson decides
06
Escalate unresolved accounts to internal teams, external collections agencies, recovery workout, and default account management
escalating accountsapproves
07
Process balance adjustments, dispute initiations, and write-off recommendations
adjustments & write-offsapproves
08
Report collections performance (DSO, aging, collector productivity, promise-to-pay conversion)
reporting performanceunattended

A predict-and-persuade process. ML prioritizes the AR book by who is likely to pay and who is at risk, and automation runs the dunning cadence — but the binding step is the human conversation: negotiating a payment plan and taking a promise-to-pay. No system autonomously commits a customer to terms, and the relationship, dispute, and write-off calls stay with a person. That relationship ceiling is why collections tops out around 35-55% AI value even at high confidence.

Aggressive or mistimed collections damages customer relationships and can breach regulation — prioritization is AI-driven, but negotiation, disputes, and write-offs stay with a person.

02
Section 02 / 05
Improvement potential · how much better it could run

How much better this process can run

The question isn’t only “is there savings” — it’s can I run this better: cheaper, faster, higher quality, better service? Here’s what best-in-class looks like, and how teams get there. (How much of it AI specifically drives — and how proven that is — is Section 04.)

Best-in-class · what “better” looks like
≤30 days
Top-quartile DSO
APQC
18 days
DSO gap to top quartile
Hackett
75%
AI users cut DSO 6+ days
Billtrust survey
~50%
Less analyst time (case)
HighRadius
How best-in-class teams get there

Process discipline first, then automation — AI is one slice of the second column, not the whole answer.

Process & standardization
  • Risk-based collections segmentation
  • Promise-to-pay & payment-plan playbooks
  • Escalation & write-off approval thresholds
  • Deduction / dispute standards
Automation & AI
  • ML payment-propensity scoring
  • Automated multi-channel dunning
  • GenAI personalized outreach
  • Collections performance dashboards (DSO)
Top-quartile teams hold DSO near 30 days versus a roughly 38-day median (APQC), an 18-day gap to the leaders that ties up working capital (Hackett Group, 2025). AI is moving the needle: in a 2025 survey of AR teams using AI, 75% cut DSO by six or more days (Billtrust / Wakefield), and vendor case studies report about 50% less analyst time (HighRadius) — though relationship-dependent negotiation caps the automation.
03
Section 03 / 05
Executor · who can run it

Your levers — five ways to run this work

“Who runs the work” is its own question, separate from AI. AI shows up across these options — sometimes heavily, sometimes not at all. Vendor-neutral; the real options mapped to AR02.

Lever 01
Internal staff
Your own team runs it — the status quo.
AI: optional copilotdata: in-house
Your people, on your ERP, optionally AI-assisted.
Best when volume is low, formats vary wildly, or you need full control and a person accountable on every step.
Lever 02
ERP / platform
Your system of record runs it natively.
AI: some nativedata: platform-resident
SAP · Oracle
Best when you're already on SAP/Oracle and want least integration — data never leaves the ERP.
Lever 03
Specialized SaaS
Buy a best-of-breed product; run it in-house.
AI: usually coredata: vendor-cloud
HighRadius · Gaviti · Quadient · Tesorio · Upflow · Centime · Chaser · BILL · Versapay · Paystand
Best when you want capability your ERP lacks and will run another system; data processed in the vendor cloud.
Lever 04
AI agents
Autonomous AI runs the pipeline; you handle exceptions.
AI: it IS the executorcross-cuts the delivery models
Tesorio · BILL · Versapay · Paystand · WNS · SAP · Oracle
Best when volume is high and formats are stable — you want touchless and only manage exceptions.
Lever 05
BPO / managed service
Hand the whole process to a partner.
AI: people + toolingdata: service-mediated
EXL Service · Genpact · WNS
Best when you want an outcome and an SLA, not a tool to operate — partner works on your ERP, data stays with you.
Note on AI agents: they aren’t bought separately — you get them through a delivery model (your ERP, a SaaS product, or the BPO). Listed on their own because “should an agent run this autonomously?” is a distinct decision (Section 05), not because it’s a separate kind of vendor.
04
Section 04 / 05
AI · where it fits this work

Match a solution to each kind of work

Recall the tasks and their nature from Section 01. AI is one lever, not the whole story — the mix below is simply the result of matching the right kind of solution to each kind of work, weighted by where the work concentrates.

Nature of the work → the solution that fits
Read a document you didn’t designDocument AI
Deterministic routing, validation, postingAgentic / RPA
Anomaly detection & predictionML / Predictive
Draft, summarize, correspondGenerative AI
Answer questions in natural languageNLP / Conversational
See / digitize images & scansComputer Vision
The AI mix · weighted by where the work concentrates
35%
ML / Predictive leads the mix — matched to where this work concentrates and to its binding step.
ML 35%
NLP 25%
Agentic 20%
Generative 15%
ML / Predictive35%
NLP / Conversational25%
Agentic AI / RPA20%
Generative AI15%
Document AI5%

ML/Predictive leads (35%) because the differentiator in modern collections is payment-propensity scoring and risk-based prioritization of the AR book — what every major platform (HighRadius, Sidetrade, Quadient) foregrounds. NLP is unusually high (25%) because dunning and customer communication — reading replies and disputes, personalizing outreach across channels, parsing promise-to-pay language — is language work. Agentic/RPA (20%) runs the dunning cadence; GenAI (15%) drafts outreach; Document AI supports.

AI target value
≤30 days — AI the dominant lever toward Section 02’s targets
AI’s contribution toward the best-in-class targets · personalized in the assessment
High
evidence
The grade is for the AI value/results, not the mix (which is directional). AI target value: ~35–55%, with ML the dominant lever for prioritization and NLP close behind for communication. Confidence: High — collections AI is mature and widely deployed, but the negotiation gate keeps the ceiling moderate. Sources: APQC, The Hackett Group, Billtrust / Wakefield 2025, HighRadius.See your number →
05
Section 05 / 05
How to choose · which lever fits you

Matching the approach to your situation

The right lever fits your volume, variability, control needs, and appetite to operate a system. Start here.

If your situation is…
Lean toward
High, stable volume; you want touchless
AI agentvia your ERP or a SaaS platform — runs itself, you handle exceptions
Formats vary widely, exceptions frequent, or a person must stay accountable
Copilotyour team, AI-assisted — the human still presses enter
Already standardized on SAP/Oracle; data must stay in the ERP
ERP-embeddedleast integration, platform-resident data
Need capability your ERP lacks; willing to run another system
Specialized SaaSbest-of-breed; data processed in vendor cloud
You want an outcome & SLA, not a tool to operate
BPO / managed serviceoffload the function; partner works on your ERP

The autonomy question: agent or copilot?

Whichever delivery model you pick, one choice cuts across them — who presses enter.

It acts

AI agent

Runs the steps end-to-end, completes the clean cases on its own, and routes only the exceptions to a person.

Best: high volume, stable inputs, a clear accountability surface.
vs
It assists

AI copilot

Sits beside the person and speeds up each step; the human acts on every decision.

Best: high variability, frequent exceptions, or a need for a person in the loop.

What to evaluate — whichever you choose

  • Accuracy on your own inputsvendor benchmarks are on clean data; test your messiest cases.
  • Straight-through / touchless ratethe real efficiency number, not “AI-powered.”
  • Exception-handling experiencemost of your team's time goes here, not the happy path.
  • ERP write-back & integration depthdoes it post cleanly to your system of record?
  • Data residencydoes data leave your environment, and is that acceptable to compliance?
  • The accountability surfacewhat happens, and who owns it, when the model is confidently wrong?
Related blocks

See every lever across your processes

Run your portfolio through the assessment — work profile, improvement potential, confidence, and executor options across all your blocks, scored against 127 enterprise subprocesses.

Open the AI Value Assessment →