2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results
Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size
Richard J. Palmer Professor of Accounting
Southeast Missouri State University
Mahendra Gupta Professor of Accounting and Management
Washington University in St. Louis
July 2015
© 2015, RPMG Research Corporation. No part of this manuscript may be duplicated, reproduced, or quoted without
the express written permission of Richard J. Palmer and Mahendra Gupta. To request permission, contact Richard
Palmer by phone (618.559.5137) or e-mail ([email protected]).
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Preface | 4
Preface
We are pleased to present the 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable (EAP) Benchmark Survey
Results. The report is based on data and analysis from over 800 EAP-using organizations
across North America to identify and understand market trends and the factors that contribute to
or detract from the use of and benefits associated with EAP (dynamically-adjustable cardless
accounts used by organizations to pay for invoiced goods and services). Our analysis of the
survey data is divided into three separate documents to assist the reader in finding the desired
information in the most convenient manner, as follows:
Market Trends and Best Practice Program Choices (the “Main” report)
o Analyses and highlights of current trends in EAP use.
o In-depth examination of factors critical to the success of EAP programs.
o Identification of future trends and growth opportunities for EAP use.
Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size
o Benchmark data to evaluate EAP programs, broken down within corporate (by size
and industry) and government and not-for-profit sectors (states and state agencies,
city and county governments, colleges and universities, schools, and not-for-profits).
The Provider’s Role in EAP Program Success
o An examination of customer satisfaction with and importance of EAP provider activities
(across economic, service and support, reporting, and integration factors) and how it
affects EAP program performance.
A “Table of Contents” for the current report, as well as a “Quick Guide to the Reports,” which
provides chapter content for the other reports, can be found on the next two pages. Financial
institutions began marketing EAP accounts around 2005. Overall, the growth of EAP has been
consistently strong in both good and poor economic conditions. However, the patterns of EAP
use and benefits received by EAP-using organizations still vary widely. While many
organizations have taken steps to advance their use of EAP to the “next level,” some
organizations lag behind. This Report examines the spending norms and program choices
being made by different types of organizations to derive the greatest benefit from EAP.
We want to express our sincere thanks to the organizations and providers that participated in
the Survey and offered their valuable input. We hope that the unselfish commitment of their
time results in more efficient means to acquire and pay for goods in the marketplace.
Richard J. Palmer Mahendra Gupta
Southeast Missouri State University Washington University in St. Louis
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Table of Contents | 5
Table of Contents
Below is a listing of the chapters included in this Report. Click on a chapter title to jump to that
page. To return to the Table of Contents, click the link in the lower left corner of any page.
Chapter Title Page #
i Preface ................................................................................................................ 004
ii Table of Contents ................................................................................................. 005
iii A Quick Guide to the Reports ............................................................................... 006
iv Executive Summary ............................................................................................. 007
INTRODUCTION
01 Introduction, Definitions, and Description of Sample ............................................ 014
PROGRAM PROFILES
02 Program Performance: Fortune 500-Size Corporations ....................................... 021
03 Program Performance: Large Market Corporations ............................................. 029
04 Program Performance: Middle Market Corporations ............................................ 035
05 Program Performance: States and State Agencies ............................................. 042
06 Program Performance: City and County Government Agencies .......................... 048
07 Program Performance: Colleges and Universities ............................................... 054
08 Program Performance: School Districts ............................................................... 060
09 Program Performance: Not-for-Profit Organizations ............................................ 066
10 Program Performance: Small Organizations ....................................................... 072
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND APPENDICES
Acknowledgements .............................................................................................. 082
About the Authors ................................................................................................ 083
Outline to the Appendices .................................................................................... 084
Appendix A: Benchmark Statistics by Organization Type .................................... 085
Appendix B: Benchmark Statistics by Industry .................................................... 094
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results A Quick Guide to the Reports | 6
A Quick Guide to the Reports
The analysis of the 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey is broken into three
separate reports to help the reader find the information they desire in the most expeditious
manner. The three reports are entitled:
Main Report: Market Trends and Best Practice Program Choices
Report #2: Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size
Report #3: The Provider’s Role in EAP Program Success
The content of Report #2 is the subject of this document. Information on where analyses may
be found in the other reports is identified below.
Main Report: Market Trends and Best Practice Program Choices
Title Chapter
Introduction, Definitions, and Description of Sample 1
EAP Goals and Comparative Advantage 2
EAP Spending Norms 3
EAP Market Size and Spending Growth 4
EAP Benefits 5
EAP Growth Potential 6
Connecting with Suppliers 7
Supplier Acceptance: Drivers and Impact 8
Best Practices 9-15
Mechanics of EAP and Integration with Organizational Information Systems 16
EAP Governance and Risk Management 17
EAP and Plastic Purchasing Cards: Integration and Advancement 18
Internal and External Fraud 19
Differences by Type of EAP Used App. A
Report #3: The Provider’s Role in Electronic Accounts Payable Success
Title Chapter
Introduction, Definitions, and Description of Sample 1
Trends in Customer Satisfaction: Economics 2
Trends in Customer Satisfaction: Customer Service and Support 3
Trends in Customer Satisfaction: Data Integration and Reporting 4
Customer Satisfaction and EAP Program Performance 5
Customer Satisfaction and Switching 6
EAP Acceptance by EAP Users 7
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 7
Executive Summary
In December 2014, a 40-page web-based “2015 Electronic Accounts Payable
Benchmark Survey” was released to 3,970 separate organizations that were
customers of one of nineteen major issuers (including Bank of America Merrill
Lynch, BMO, Bank of the West, BBVA Compass, Citibank, Comdata, Comerica,
Commerce Bank, Electronic Funds Source, Fifth Third Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase,
PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust, UMB, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, WEX, and
Zions Bank) or members of the National Association of Purchasing Card
Professionals and the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. Eight
hundred and seventy responses were received, resulting in a response rate of
22%. All major EAP providing brands (American Express, MasterCard, and Visa)
are represented in the survey response.
Electronic Accounts Payable (hereafter “EAP”) is a relatively new application of
card technology for commercial use. This survey defined EAP as non-plastic p-
card accounts used to pay for goods and services after an invoice has been
received for those goods or services. For purposes of this survey, there are two
models of EAP implementation---push payments and pull payments. Within the
pull model, EAP has three major variations. Specifically, EAP can differ based
on whether or not the “virtual” card number is constant or if the card number (and
its associated credit line) is created specifically for a single transaction and then
retired (e.g., a “single-use” account). Within the variation in which the card
number is constant, a further distinction can be made regarding the identity of the
party (buyer or seller) that will maintain possession of the card number. The
second model of EAP implementation is referred to as “straight-through,” “push,”
or “buyer-initiated” payments (BIP). This payment option entails a card account
that the buying organization charges on behalf of the vendor, resulting in funds
being deposited (pushed) directly into the vendor’s bank account.
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 8
Introduction to EAP Program Profiles
Fortune 500-Size Corporations make up the largest portion (40%) of total North American
EAP spending, followed by Not-for-Profit Organizations (27%), Large Market (14%) and
Middle Market (6%) corporations, Colleges and Universities (6%), School Districts (3%),
City and County Governments (2%), and Federal and State Government Agencies (2%).
Program Performance: Fortune 500-Size Corporations
Fortune 500-Size respondents average $7.6 million in
EAP spending per month with an average transaction
amount of $4,928. Average monthly EAP spending per
employee is currently $219. All of these benchmark
figures have increased in comparison to 2012 data.
Between 2014 and 2015, 76% of Fortune 500-Size
corporations report an increase and 10% no change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 80% of Fortune 500-Size corporations expect an increase and 12% no
change in EAP spending by 2019, with an average increase of 88% expected over 2014
base year spending (an average annual rate of 17.6%).
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier), with two out of every three respondents utilizing this method.
All of the Fortune 500-Size respondents had engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for
EAP acceptance, but only 19% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of
supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Fortune 500-Size companies pay (on average) the highest number of suppliers with EAP,
most likely to have engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, and most
likely to have changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance of all of the segments
analyzed in this report.
Fortune 500-Size companies are the most likely to have a payment strategy which calls for
different payment methods under different conditions of all of the segments analyzed in
this report.
Fortune 100-Size respondents currently average $11 million per month in EAP spending,
with an average transaction of $4,146. Compared to the overall Fortune 500-size
segment, the Fortune 100-Size group has 46% higher monthly spending, a higher
percentage of transactions paid with EAP, and older EAP programs (on average).
$7.6 Million
Average monthly EAP spending for Fortune 500-size corporations
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 9
Program Performance: Large Market Corporations
Large Market respondents average $1.5 million in EAP spending per month with an
average transaction amount of $4,466. Average monthly EAP spending per employee is
currently $319. All of these benchmark figures have increased in comparison to 2012
data.
Between 2014 and 2015, 66% of Large Market corporations reported an increase and 28%
no change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 78% of Large Market corporations
expect an increase and 10% no change in EAP
spending by 2019, with an average increase of 65%
expected over 2014 base year spending (an
average annual rate of 12.9%).
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 65% of respondents utilizing this method.
Ninety-three percent of Large Market respondents have engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, but only 19% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the
current level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Program Performance: Middle Market Corporations
Middle Market respondents average $624,681 in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction amount of $3,897. Average monthly EAP spending per employee is currently
$820. All of these benchmark figures have increased in comparison to 2012 data.
Between 2014 and 2015, 74% of Middle Market corporations report an increase and 23%
no change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 81% of Middle Market corporations expect an increase and 17% no change
in EAP spending by 2019, a response pattern that is the most optimistic of all of the
segments analyzed in this report. An average increase of 75% is expected over the 2014
base year EAP spending (an average annual rate of 15.1%).
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 67% of respondents utilizing this method, and 58% using single-use
accounts.
Ninety-one percent of Middle Market respondents have engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 24% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current
level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
$4,466
Average EAP transaction amount for Large Market
corporations
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 10
Program Performance: States and State Agencies
States (and provinces) and State Agencies average $1.3 million in EAP spending per
month with an average transaction amount of $2,818. Average monthly EAP spending per
employee is currently $106. All of these benchmark figures have increased in comparison
to 2012 data.
Between 2014 and 2015, 65% of States and State Agencies report an increase and 30%
no change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 69% of States and State Agencies expect an increase and 25% no change
in EAP spending by 2019, with an average increase of 89% expected over 2014 base year
spending (an average annual rate of 17.8%).
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 79% of respondents utilizing this method.
Ninety-one percent of States and State Agencies have engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 21% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current
level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Program Performance: City and County Government Agencies
City and County respondents average $321,028 in EAP monthly spending with an average
transaction amount of $3,239. Average monthly EAP spending per employee is currently
$220. All of these benchmark figures have increased in comparison to 2012 data.
Between 2014 and 2015, 67% of Cities and Counties
report an increase and 22% no change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 56% of City and County respondents
expect an increase and 32% no change in EAP spending
by 2019, a response pattern that is the least optimistic of
all of the segments analyzed in this report. An average increase of 50% is expected over
2014 base year EAP spending (an average annual rate of 10%).
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 84% of respondents utilizing this method.
Eighty-six percent of City and County respondents have engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 23% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current
level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
City and County respondents pay (on average) the lowest number of suppliers with EAP
(91) of all of the segments analyzed in this report.
84%
Of Cities and Counties use virtual accounts
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 11
Program Performance: Colleges and Universities
Colleges and Universities average $980,764 in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction amount of $2,014. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $138. All
of these benchmark figures have increased in comparison to 2012 data.
Between 2014 and 2015, 53% of Colleges and Universities report an increase and 33% no
change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 63% of Colleges and Universities expect an increase and 26% no change
in EAP spending by 2019, with an average increase of 64% expected over 2014 base year
spending (an average annual rate of 12.7%).
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 83% of respondents utilizing this method.
Eighty-two percent of College and University respondents have engaged in an effort to
enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 31% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the
current level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
College and University respondents are most likely to have a plastic purchasing card
program (97%) and least likely to have engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP
acceptance (87%) of all of the segments analyzed in this report.
Program Performance: School Districts
School Districts average $337,294 in EAP spending per
month with an average transaction amount of $3,434.
Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $94.
All of these benchmark figures have increased in
comparison to 2012 data.
Between 2014 and 2015, 76% of School Districts report
an increase and 12% no change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 62% of School Districts expect an increase and 29% no change in EAP
spending by 2019, with an average increase of 51% expected over 2014 base year
spending (an average annual rate of 10.2%).
School Districts are the least likely to have a payment strategy which calls for different
payment methods under different conditions of all of the segments analyzed in this report.
Virtual accounts (65% of respondents) and single-use accounts (47%) are the most
popular EAP configurations.
$94
Monthly EAP spending per employee for
School Districts
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 12
Eighty-three percent of School District respondents have engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 45% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current
level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Program Performance: Not-for-Profit Organizations
Not-for-Profit organizations average $2.8 million in EAP spending per month with an
average transaction amount of $4,327. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently
$420. All of these benchmark figures have increased in comparison to 2012 data.
Between 2014 and 2015, 60% of Not-for-Profit organizations report an increase and 32%
no change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 74% of Not-for-Profit organizations expect an increase and 13% no change
in EAP spending by 2019, with an average increase of 58% expected over 2014 base year
spending (an average annual rate of 11.7%).
Virtual accounts (66% of respondents) and single-use accounts (45%) are the most
popular EAP configurations.
Ninety-two percent of Not-for-Profit respondents have engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 19% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current
level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Habit is the nursery of errors.
Victor Hugo ‘’
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Executive Summary | 13
Program Performance: Small Organizations
Small Organizations average $30,387 in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction amount of $2,186. Average monthly EAP spending per employee is currently
$305. Single-use accounts (62% of respondents) and virtual accounts (54%) are the most
popular EAP configurations.
Between 2014 and 2015, 70% of Small Organizations report an increase and 20% no
change in EAP spending.
Going forward, 75% of Small Organizations expect an increase and 20% no change in
EAP spending by 2019, with an average increase of 96% expected over 2014 base year
spending (an average annual rate of 19.3%).
In rating the importance of EAP program goals, Small Organizations, are more concerned
(than other organizations) with improving cash flow (3.92 versus 3.51) and tracking of
payments (4.25 versus 3.77), and less concerned with simplifying the payment process
(3.58 versus 4.02) or consolidating spending data (2.50 versus 2.91).
Average Small Organization implementation time for
EAP is just over six months, which is half that of all other
organizations (13 months).
Seventy-five percent of Small Organizations have
engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP
acceptance. On average, Small Organization pay 32
suppliers with EAP, representing 29% of their supplier
base.
Small Organizations are generally less satisfied than other organizations with the EAP
provider relationship and product, but they also expect less. Small Organizations have
lower negative satisfaction-importance gaps than the total sample for customer service and
reporting.
6 Months
Average time to full implementation of EAP program for
Small Organizations
Introduction, Definitions, 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results and Description of Sample | 14
Chapter 1
In December 2014, a 40-page web-based “2015 Electronic Accounts Payable
Benchmark Survey” was delivered to 3,970 separate organizations that were
customers of one of nineteen major issuers (including Bank of America Merrill
Lynch, BMO, Bank of the West, BBVA Compass, Citibank, Comdata, Comerica,
Commerce Bank, Electronic Funds Source, Fifth Third Bank, J.P. Morgan Chase,
PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust, UMB, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, WEX, and
Zions Bank or members of the National Association of Purchasing Card
Professionals and the National Institute of Governmental Purchasing. Eight
hundred and seventy responses were received, resulting in a response rate of
22%.1 All major EAP providing brands (American Express, MasterCard, and
Visa) are represented in the survey response.
1 Occasionally, respondents may have given an incomplete response resulting in a different number of responses for
different questions. Throughout this report, our analysis of any given question will be based on usable responses to each question. In addition, we have purged unusual “outlier” responses to specific questionnaire items when appropriate to facilitate a meaningful understanding of the data and made minor adjustments to 2012 data to match 2015 sample composition.
Introduction, Definitions, and Description of Sample
Introduction, Definitions, 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results and Description of Sample | 15
Defining Electronic Accounts Payable
Electronic Accounts Payable (hereafter “EAP”) is a relatively new application of card technology
for commercial use. This survey defined EAP as non-plastic p-card accounts used to pay for
goods and services after an invoice has been received for those goods or services.
The essence of EAP is a dynamically-adjustable account, meaning that the available credit on a
card account is adjusted to match a specific transaction to be charged to a card number.
Hence, after the transaction is completed the available line of credit on the card is of little or no
value. As shown in Exhibit 1, there are two models of EAP implementation, which we refer to
as “push” and “pull.” The pull model is so named because suppliers are required to input
transaction data in order to pull the transaction through to its conclusion. Within the pull model,
EAP has three major variations. Specifically, EAP can differ based on whether or not the
“virtual” card number is constant or if the card number (and its associated credit line) is created
specifically for a single transaction and then retired (e.g., a “single-use” account). Within the
variation in which the card number is constant, a further distinction can be made regarding the
identity of the party (buyer or seller) that will maintain possession of the card number. Buyers
and sellers tend to have preferences about where the card number is housed. In some cases,
buyers prefer the seller to house the card number so that it does not have to be communicated
with every purchase. In other cases, sellers do not want to house the number and take on the
associated responsibility for its security. The second model of EAP implementation is referred
to as “straight-through,” “push,” or “buyer-initiated” payments (BIP). This payment option entails
a card account that the buying organization charges on behalf of the vendor, resulting in funds
being deposited (pushed) directly into the vendor’s bank account.
Exhibit 1: EAP Models and Variations
Introduction, Definitions, 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results and Description of Sample | 16
Respondent Profile
Exhibit 2 shows a breakdown of survey respondents by organizational type: 33% are Privately-
Owned Corporations, 21% are Public Corporations, 15% are Not-for-Profit Organizations,
12% are City or County Governments, 9% are Colleges or Universities, 8% are School Districts,
and 2% are Federal or State Government Agencies.
Exhibit 2: Respondents by Organizational Type
Exhibit 3 on the next page separates public and private corporations (which represent 54% of
the total sample response as shown in Exhibit 2) into four size categories: 29% are “Fortune
500-Size” companies (annual sales revenue greater than or equal to $2 billion), 25% are “Large
Market” companies (annual sales revenue greater than or equal to $500 million, but less than $2
billion), 39% are “Middle Market” companies (annual sales revenue greater than or equal to $25
million, but less than $500 million) and 7% are “Small Market” companies (annual sales revenue
of less than $25 million).
To minimize any potential for distortion due to the presence of smaller organizations in the
sample, hereafter all figures and exhibits in this Report exclude Small Market corporations and
government and not-for-profit entities with annual budgets below $25 million. Information about
EAP use at these organizations is discussed in the chapter entitled “Program Performance:
Small Organizations.”
Introduction, Definitions, 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results and Description of Sample | 17
Exhibit 3: Corporate Respondents by Size
Corporate respondents represent a wide range of industries. Exhibit 4 breaks down the
corporate respondents by industry using Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) codes. The
Exhibit shows that the response pool is well-distributed across different industries.
Manufacturing is the largest single industry segment (29%). No single SIC code within
manufacturing dominates this category.
Exhibit 4: Corporate Respondents by Industry
29% 25% 39% 7%
Fortune 500-Size Large Market Middle Market Small Market
F o r t u n e
500
Introduction, Definitions, 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results and Description of Sample | 18
The sample composition is reflective of an emerging technology, with respondents reporting that
they have been using EAP for (on average) three years and four months. Exhibit 5 breaks
down the respondent base by the length of time that an EAP program has been in place. The
Exhibit shows that 13% of respondent programs are less than one year old, 34% are between 1
and 2 years old, 24% are between 3 and 4 years old, and 29% are 5 or more years old.
Exhibit 5: Age of EAP Program
Connection to the 2012 Report
Throughout this report, we will selectively make comparative references to a previous RPMG
Research Corporation report--the 2012 Electronic Accounts Payable (EAP) Benchmark Survey
Results.2 The 2012 Results were obtained from a survey that targeted EAP users, but was not
exclusive to EAP users.
2 Copies of this report are available at http://www.rpmgresearch.net.
Introduction, Definitions, 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results and Description of Sample | 19
Introduction to Program Profiles
This report provides a presentation and analysis of Electronic Accounts Payable (EAP)
spending and program management practices of different market segments. The segments
discussed in this report will include: Fortune 500-Size, Large Market, and Middle Market
Corporations; States and State Agencies; City and County Governments; Colleges and
Universities; School Districts; and Not-for-Profit Organizations. In addition, we will examine the
unique EAP programs of Small Organizations (defined as any organization with annual revenue
or an annual budget below $25 million).
For each segment, there will be a chapter that provides (a) monthly EAP spending norms,
(b) the historical trend for EAP benchmarks, (c) the percentage of transactions currently paid
with EAP (for various dollar ranges), (d) the percentage of respondents using each type of EAP
payment (e.g., single-use accounts, virtual accounts, or buyer-initiated payments), (e) the past
and future growth of EAP spending, and (f) some fundamental aspects of how EAP programs
are being managed.
Additional Analysis
Appendix A at the end of this Report contains additional analysis of Fortune 500-Size, Large,
and Middle Market Corporations, States and State Agencies, City and County Governments,
Colleges and Universities, School Districts, and Not-for-Profit Organizations.
In addition, Appendix B contains the same information as Appendix A, but is broken down by
nine industry categories, as follows: (1) Agriculture, mining, and construction; (2) Finance,
insurance, banking, and real estate; (3) Manufacturing; (4) Professional, scientific, and technical
services; (5) Software and IT solutions; (6) Telecommunications, media, and entertainment;
(7) Transportation, warehousing, and delivery services; (8) Utilities; and (9) Wholesale and
retail trade.
Introduction, Definitions, 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results and Description of Sample | 20
EAP Spending by Market Segment
In Chapter 4 of the Main Report (Market Trends and Best Practice Program Choices), current
overall North American EAP market spending was estimated at $65 billion. Of that total,
Exhibit 6 shows that Fortune 500-Size Corporations make up the largest portion (40%) of total
market spending, followed by Not-for-Profit Organizations (27%), Large Market (14%) and
Middle Market (6%) Corporations, Colleges and Universities (6%), School Districts (3%), City
and County Governments (2%), and Federal and State Government Agencies (2%).
Exhibit 6: Current EAP Spending, by Market Segment*
* Due to the nature of their size, Small Organizations make up less than one percent of the total market spending, and therefore have been excluded from this Exhibit.
Conclusion
A broad spectrum of organizations is represented in the final sample for analyses of EAP use in
both Corporate and Government and Not-for-Profit segments. Though most EAP programs are
relatively new, the respondent pool includes a diverse range of experience with EAP. Finally,
respondent use of different EAP models creates an opportunity to gain additional insight into the
unique nature of this payment technology.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Fortune 500-Size Corporations | 21
Chapter 2
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 7 on the next page presents current EAP spending norms for Fortune 500-Size
corporate respondents. The Exhibit shows that average monthly EAP account spending is
$7.6 million at the beginning of 2015, up from $4 million at the beginning of 2012. Likewise,
median monthly spending currently stands at $2.1 million, up from $1.2 million in 2012. The
average EAP transaction amount for Fortune 500-Size respondents is $4,928 in 2015, nearly
doubling since 2012. Average monthly spending per employee has also increased, going from
$118 in 2012 to $219 in 2015. Average annual EAP spending as a percentage of sales revenue
has also increased over the past three years.
Finally, the Exhibit shows that Fortune 500-Size respondents have either increased or
maintained their capture of transactions with EAP since 2012. Fortune 500-Size companies
currently use EAP to pay for, on average, 17% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 22% of their
$2,501 to $10,000 transactions, 22% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 8% of their
$100,001 to $1 million transactions.
Program Performance: Fortune 500-Size Corporations
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Fortune 500-Size Corporations | 22
Exhibit 7: EAP Program Statistics, Fortune 500-Size Corporations, 2012 and 2015 (all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 34,343 34,470
Age of program (in years) 3.05 4.15
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $4,043,584 $7,564,988
Median monthly EAP spending $1,167,000 $2,114,794
Monthly spending per employee $118 $219
Spending per transaction $2,541 $4,928
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 0.54% 0.69%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 13% 17%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 17% 22%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 22% 22%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million N/A 8%
Historical Trends at a Glance
Exhibit 8 presents a graphic summary of the changes in Fortune 500-Size EAP program
spending statistics since 2012, including overall monthly EAP spending, monthly spending per
employee, and the average transaction amount.
Exhibit 8: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, Fortune 500-Size Corporations, 2012 to 2015
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Fortune 500-Size Corporations | 23
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 9 breaks down the types of EAP models used by Fortune 500-Size corporations. The
most popular option used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier) with 67% of
respondents utilizing this method.
Exhibit 9: Use of EAP Configurations, Fortune 500-Size Corporations
Percent of
Respondents Using
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 67%
Single-use accounts 42%
Buyer-initiated payments 33%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 10, 76% of Fortune 500-Size corporations report EAP spending growth,
10% report no change, and 14% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year (between
2014 and 2015).
Exhibit 10: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Fortune 500-Size Corporations,
2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Fortune 500-Size Corporations | 24
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 11(a) shows that 80% of programs expect an increase in EAP
spending over the next five years, while 12% expect no change. As a rationale for the expected
increase, the majority (75%) of Fortune 500-Size corporations cite efforts to target vendors.
Exhibit 11(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, Fortune 500-Size
Corporations, 2015 to 2019
Exhibit 11(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively, spending is expected to increase 88% by 2019 (or 17.6% per year on average).
Exhibit 11(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending,
Fortune 500-Size Corporations
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 13% 15%
2017 43% 48%
2019 83% 88%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 16.6% 17.6%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Fortune 500-Size Corporations | 25
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 12 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 92%
of Fortune 500-Size respondents use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Eight percent
of respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under different
conditions. Fortune 500-size corporations use EAP to pay for 39% of purchases in goods
categories and 36% of purchases in service categories. The average time to full
implementation for Fortune 500-Size EAP programs is 1.62 years. Respondents pay an
average of 268 suppliers with EAP, representing 13% of their supplier base. All of the Fortune
500-size respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, but only 19%
are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
In addition, the majority (65%) of respondents formally review and audit their EAP spending
approval process, 60% have EAP provider insurance related to fraudulent spending, and 17% of
EAP transactions (on average) are manually reconciled.
Coming together is a beginning. Keeping together is progress.
Working together is success.
Henry Ford ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Fortune 500-Size Corporations | 26
Exhibit 12: EAP Program Management Statistics, Fortune 500-Size Corporations
2015
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 92%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 80%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 39%
Services purchased with EAP^ 36%
Time to full implementation (in years) 1.62
Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 268
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 13%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 19%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 100%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 58%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 17%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 65%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 60%
* As described in Chapter 6 (of the Main Report), we defined six categories of goods including: (1) office equipment and supplies; (2) computer and mobile hardware, software, and peripherals; (3) operating goods and supplies; (4) construction materials and capital assets; (5) inventory; and (6) infrastructure. For a complete description of the categories, see Chapter 6. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Fortune 500-Size corporations.
^ As described in Chapter 6 (of the Main Report), we defined eight categories of services including: (1) contractual repair and maintenance; (2) mail and delivery of goods; (3) education and training; (4) professional services; (5) telecommunications and utilities; (6) media and advertising; (7) travel; and (8) other business services. For a complete description of the categories, see Chapter 6. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Fortune 500-Size corporations.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Fortune 500-Size Corporations | 27
“Fortune 100-Size” Spending Norms
Unlike our other corporate size categories, the Fortune 500-Size segment has no upper limit on
the size of the respondents. Since companies in this segment can vary, we have broken off the
upper end of this segment (or “Fortune 100-Size”) for further analysis. This “largest of the large”
group is a unique market and includes all companies with annual sales revenue of $20 billion or
above.
Exhibit 13 presents the EAP program performance statistics of Fortune 100-Size corporations.
The Exhibit shows that these companies average $11 million in monthly EAP spending,
supported by a $4,146 average transaction amount, both increased from 2012. The average
monthly spending per employee is $131, up modestly from $95 in 2012.
Compared to the overall Fortune 500-size segment, Fortune 100-size corporations report:
Higher monthly EAP spending ($11 versus $7.6 million),
A lower average transaction amount ($4,146 versus $4,928),
Older average program age (5.05 versus 4.15 years),
Higher capture of transactions paid with EAP for $2,500 or less (20% versus 17%) and
$2,501 to $10,000 (26% versus 22%).
Exhibit 13: EAP Program Statistics, Fortune 100-Size Corporations, 2012 and 2015 (all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 91,576 84,232
Age of program (in years) 2.90 5.05
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $8,712,829 $11,023,140
Median monthly EAP spending $3,000,000 $5,250,000
Monthly spending per employee $95 $131
Spending per transaction $2,578 $4,146
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 0.50% 0.47%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 17% 20%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 20% 26%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 24% 24%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million N/A 6%
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Fortune 500-Size Corporations | 28
Conclusion
Fortune 500-Size respondents average $7.6 million in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction of $4,928. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $219. All of these
benchmarks represent increases from corresponding 2012 data.
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with two out of every three respondents utilizing this method. All Fortune 500-size
respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, but only 19% are
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Fortune 100-size respondents currently average $11 million per month in EAP spending, with an
average transaction of $4,146. Compared to the overall Fortune 500-size segment, the Fortune
100-size group has 46% higher monthly spending, a higher percentage of transactions paid with
EAP, and (on average) older EAP programs.
Planning without action is futile, action without planning is fatal.
Cornelius Fitchner ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Large Market Corporations | 29
Chapter 3
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 14 presents current EAP spending norms for Large Market corporate respondents. The
Exhibit shows that average monthly EAP account spending is $1.5 million at the beginning of
2015, up from $825,952 at the beginning of 2012. Likewise, median monthly spending currently
stands at $900,000, up from $480,000 in 2012. The average EAP transaction amount for Large
Market respondents is $4,466 in 2015, an increase from 2012. Average monthly spending per
employee has also increased, going from $186 in 2012 to $319 in 2015. Average annual EAP
spending as a percentage of sales revenue also increased from 1.07% in 2012 to 1.53% in
2015.
Finally, the Exhibit shows that Large Market respondents currently use EAP to pay for, on
average, 14% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 18% of their $2,501 to $10,000 transactions,
17% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 9% of their $100,001 to $1 million
transactions. EAP transaction capture in all spending categories (that were included in our
2012 report) has remained steady or increased since 2012.
Program Performance: Large Market Corporations
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Large Market Corporations | 30
Exhibit 14: EAP Program Statistics, Large Market Corporations, 2012 and 2015
(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 4,430 4,791
Age of program (in years) 2.81 3.40
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $825,952 $1,527,719
Median monthly EAP spending $480,000 $900,000
Monthly spending per employee $186 $319
Spending per-transaction $2,945 $4,466
Annual EAP spending as a percentage of revenue/budget 1.07% 1.53%
Transaction Capture
Transactions of $2,500 or less paid with EAP 11% 14%
Transactions of $2,501 to $10,000 paid with EAP 15% 18%
Transactions of $10,001 to $100,000 paid with EAP 17% 17%
Transactions of $100,001 to $1 Million paid with EAP N/A 9%
Historical Trends at a Glance
Exhibit 15 presents a graphic summary of the changes in the Large Market EAP spending
statistics since 2012, including overall monthly EAP spending, monthly spending per employee,
and the average transaction amount.
Exhibit 15: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, Large Market Corporations,
2012 to 2015
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Large Market Corporations | 31
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 16 breaks down the types of EAP models used by Large Market corporations. The
most popular option used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier) with 65% of
respondents utilizing this method.
Exhibit 16: Use of EAP Configurations, Large Market Corporations
Percent of
Respondents Using
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 65%
Single-use accounts 53%
Buyer-initiated payments 30%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 17, 66% of Large Market corporations report EAP spending growth, 28%
report no change, and 6% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year (between 2014
and 2015).
Exhibit 17: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Large Market Corporations,
2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Large Market Corporations | 32
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 18(a) shows that the majority of programs (78%) expect an increase in
EAP spending over the next five years, while 10% expect no change. As a rationale for the
expected increase, the majority (71%) of Large Market corporations cite efforts to target
vendors, and improvements in supplier acceptance of EAP (51%).
Exhibit 18(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, Large Market
Corporations, 2015 to 2019
Exhibit 18(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively, spending is expected to increase 65% by 2019 (or an average of 12.9% per year).
Exhibit 18(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, Large Market
Corporations
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 10% 12%
2017 33% 37%
2019 61% 65%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 12.2% 12.9%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Large Market Corporations | 33
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 19 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 93%
of Large Market respondents use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Seventy-two
percent of respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under
different conditions. Large Market corporations use EAP to pay for 54% of purchases in goods
categories and 58% of purchases in service categories. The average time to full
implementation for Large Market EAP programs is 1.03 years. Respondents pay an average of
251 suppliers with EAP, representing 19% of their supplier base. Ninety-three percent of Large
Market respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, but only 19%
are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
In addition, the majority (57%) of respondents formally review and audit their EAP spending
approval process, 35% have EAP provider insurance related to fraudulent spending, and 16% of
EAP transactions (on average) are manually reconciled.
.
It’s hard to beat a person who never gives up.
Babe Ruth ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Large Market Corporations | 34
Exhibit 19: EAP Program Management Statistics, Large Market Corporations
2015
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 93%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 72%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 54%
Services purchased with EAP^ 58%
Time to full implementation (in years) 1.03
Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 251
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 19%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 19%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 93%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 28%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 16%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 57%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 35%
* See description of the “goods” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Large Market corporations.
^ See description of the “services” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Large Market corporations.
Conclusion
Large Market respondents average $1.5 million in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction of $4,466. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $319. All of these
benchmarks represent increases from corresponding 2012 data.
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 65% of respondents utilizing this method. Ninety-three percent of Large Market
respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 19% are
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Middle Market Corporations | 35
Chapter 4
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 20 presents current EAP spending norms for Middle Market corporate respondents.
The Exhibit shows that average monthly EAP account spending is $624,681 at the beginning of
2015, up from $339,618 at the beginning of 2012. Likewise, median monthly spending currently
stands at $187,500, up from $95,000 in 2012. The average EAP transaction amount for Middle
Market respondents is $3,897 in 2015, an increase from 2012. Average monthly spending per
employee has increased, going from $472 in 2012 to $820 in 2015. And, average annual EAP
spending as a percentage of sales revenue has also increased from 2.55% in 2012 to 3.61% in
2015.
Finally, the Exhibit shows that Middle Market respondents currently use EAP to pay for, on
average, 18% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 21% of their $2,501 to $10,000 transactions,
17% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 8% of their $100,001 to $1 million
transactions. EAP transaction capture in all spending categories (that were included in our
2012 report) has remained steady or increased since 2012.
Program Performance: Middle Market Corporations
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Middle Market Corporations | 36
Exhibit 20: EAP Program Statistics, Middle Market Corporations, 2012 and 2015
(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 658 762
Age of program (in years) 3.00 2.94
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $339,618 $624,681
Median monthly EAP spending $95,000 $187,500
Monthly spending per employee $472 $820
Spending per transaction $2,389 $3,897
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 2.55% 3.61%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 14% 18%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 17% 21%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 17% 17%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million N/A 8%
Historical Trends at a Glance
Exhibit 21 presents a graphic summary of the changes in the Middle Market EAP spending
statistics since 2012, including overall monthly EAP spending, monthly spending per employee,
and the average transaction amount.
Exhibit 21: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, Middle Market Corporations,
2012 to 2015
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Middle Market Corporations | 37
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 22 breaks down the types of EAP models used by Middle Market corporations. Both
virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier) and single-use accounts are popular
options, in use by 67% and 58% of respondents, respectively.
Exhibit 22: Use of EAP Configurations, Middle Market Corporations
Percent of
Respondents Using
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 67%
Single-use accounts 58%
Buyer-initiated payments 23%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 23, 74% of Middle Market corporations report EAP spending growth, 23%
report no change, and 3% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year (between 2014
and 2015).
Exhibit 23: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Middle Market Corporations, 2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Middle Market Corporations | 38
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 24(a) shows that 81% of programs expect an increase in EAP
spending over the next five years, while 17% expect no change. As a rationale for the expected
increase, the majority (69%) of Middle Market corporations cite efforts to target vendors.
Exhibit 24(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, Middle Market Corporations, 2015 to 2019
Exhibit 24(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively speaking, spending is expected to increase 75% by 2019 (or an average of 15.1%
per year).
Exhibit 24(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, Middle Market Corporations
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 12% 14%
2017 37% 41%
2019 71% 75%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 14.2% 15.1%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Middle Market Corporations | 39
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 25 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 87%
of Middle Market respondents use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Sixty-five
percent of respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under
different conditions. Middle Market corporations use EAP to pay for 43% of good and 28% of
service categories. The average time to full implementation for Middle Market EAP programs is
0.87 years. Respondents pay an average of 157 suppliers with EAP, representing (on average)
14% of their supplier base. Ninety-one percent of Middle Market respondents engaged in an
effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, but only 24% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with
the level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
In addition, the majority (53%) of respondents formally review and audit their EAP spending
approval process, 28% have EAP provider insurance related to fraudulent spending, and 29% of
EAP transactions (on average) are manually reconciled. .
If I had to identify, in one word, the reason why the human race
has not achieved, and never will achieve, its full potential, that
word would be “meetings.”
Dave Berry ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Middle Market Corporations | 40
Exhibit 25: EAP Program Management Statistics, Middle Market Corporations
2015
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 87%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 65%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 43%
Services purchased with EAP^ 28%
Time to full implementation (in years) 0.87
Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 157
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 14%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 24%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 91%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 29%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 29%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 53%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 28%
* See description of the “goods” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Middle Market corporations.
^ See description of the “services” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Middle Market corporations.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Middle Market Corporations | 41
Conclusion
Middle Market respondents average $624,681 in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction amount of $3,897. Average monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $820.
All of these benchmarks represent increases from corresponding 2012 data.
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 67% of respondents utilizing this method, and 58% using single-use accounts.
Ninety-one percent of Middle Market respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for
EAP acceptance, with the typical respondent paying (on average) 14% of its supplier base with
EAP.
Risk comes from not knowing what you are doing.
Warren Buffett ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results States and State Agencies | 42
Chapter 5
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 26 presents current EAP spending norms for States (and Provinces of Canada) and
agencies thereof.3 The Exhibit shows that average monthly EAP account spending is $1.3
million at the beginning of 2015, up from $680,620 at the beginning of 2012. Likewise, median
monthly spending currently stands at $444,000, up from $325,000 in 2012. The average EAP
transaction amount for these respondents is $2,818 in 2015, an increase from 2012. Average
monthly spending per employee has increased, going from $59 in 2012 to $106 in 2015. And,
average annual EAP spending as a percentage of budget has also increased from 0.27% in
2012 to 0.38% in 2015.
Finally, the Exhibit shows that States and State Agency respondents currently use EAP to pay
for, on average, 15% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 28% of their $2,501 to $10,000
transactions, 26% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 5% of their $100,001 to
$1 million transactions. EAP transaction capture in all spending categories (that were included
in our 2012 report) has increased since 2012.
3 Hereafter, this report will refer to these organizations as “Sates and State Agencies.”
Program Performance: States and State Agencies
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results States and State Agencies | 43
Exhibit 26: EAP Program Statistics, States and State Agencies, 2012 and 2015
(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 11,554 12,398
Age of program (in years) 3.89 5.15
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $680,620 $1,310,804
Median monthly EAP spending $325,000 $444,000
Monthly spending per employee $59 $106
Spending per transaction $1,320 $2,818
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 0.27% 0.38%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 11% 15%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 25% 28%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 25% 26%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million N/A 5%
Historical Trends at a Glance
Exhibit 27 presents a graphic summary of the changes in State and State Agency EAP
spending statistics since 2012, including overall monthly EAP spending, monthly spending per
employee, and the average transaction amount.
Exhibit 27: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, States and State Agencies,
2012 to 2015
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results States and State Agencies | 44
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 28 breaks down the types of EAP models used by state governments and agencies.
The most popular option is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier), in use by 79%
of respondents.
Exhibit 28: Use of EAP Configurations, States and State Agencies
Percent of
Respondents Using
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 79%
Single-use accounts 36%
Buyer-initiated payments 21%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 29, 65% of State and State agency respondents report EAP spending
growth, 30% report no change, and 5% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year
(between 2014 and 2015).
Exhibit 29: Type of Change in EAP Spending, States and State Agencies,
2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results States and State Agencies | 45
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 30(a) shows that 69% of programs expect an increase in EAP
spending over the next five years, while 25% expect no change. As a rationale for the expected
increase, all of the states and state agencies cite efforts to target vendors.
Exhibit 30(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, States and State
Agencies, 2015 to 2019
Exhibit 30(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively, spending is expected to increase 89% by 2019 (or an average of 17.8% per year).
Exhibit 30(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, States and State
Agencies
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 13% 15%
2017 38% 43%
2019 84% 89%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 16.8% 17.8%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results States and State Agencies | 46
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 31 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 86%
of States and State Agencies use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Fifty-six percent
of respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under different
conditions. States and State Agency respondents use EAP to pay for 50% of good and 56% of
service categories. The average time to full implementation for States and State Agency EAP
programs is 1.25 years. Respondents pay an average of 169 suppliers with EAP, representing
(on average) 22% of their supplier base.
Ninety-one percent of States and State Agency engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP
acceptance, and 21% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance of
EAP.
In addition, the majority (53%) of respondents formally review and audit their EAP spending
approval process, 33% have EAP provider insurance related to fraudulent spending, and 12% of
EAP transactions (on average) are manually reconciled.
I have failed over and over again in my life and this is why I
succeed.
Michael Jordan ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results States and State Agencies | 47
Exhibit 31: EAP Program Management Statistics, States and State Agencies
2015
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 86%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 56%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 50%
Services purchased with EAP^ 56%
Time to full implementation (in years) 1.25
Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 169
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 22%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 21%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 91%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 24%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 12%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 53%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 33%
* See description of the “goods” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by State and State Agency respondents.
^ See description of the “services” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by State and State Agency respondents.
Conclusion
States and State Agencies average $1.3 million in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction of $2,818. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $106. All of these
benchmarks represent increases from corresponding 2012 data.
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 79% of respondents utilizing this method. Ninety-one percent of States and State
Agency respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance and the typical
State or State Agency respondent pays (on average) 22% of its supplier base with EAP.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Cities and Counties | 48
Chapter 6
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 32 presents current EAP spending norms for City and County respondents. The Exhibit
shows that average monthly EAP account spending is $321,028 at the beginning of 2015, up
from $161,031 at the beginning of 2012. Likewise, median monthly spending currently stands at
$100,000, up from $35,850 in 2012. The average EAP transaction amount for these
respondents is $3,239 in 2015, an increase from 2012. Average monthly spending per
employee has increased, going from $123 in 2012 to $220 in 2015. And, average annual EAP
spending as a percentage of budget has also increased from 1.08% in 2012 to 1.27% in 2015.
Finally, the Exhibit shows that City and County respondents currently use EAP to pay for, on
average, 13% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 17% of their $2,501 to $10,000 transactions,
15% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 7% of their $100,001 to $1 million
transactions. EAP transaction capture in all spending categories (that were included in our
2012 report) has increased since 2012.
Program Performance: City and County Government
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Cities and Counties | 49
Exhibit 32: EAP Program Statistics, Cities and Counties, 2012 and 2015
(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 1,305 1,457
Age of program (in years) 2.90 3.53
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $161,031 $321,028
Median monthly EAP spending $35,850 $100,000
Monthly spending per employee $123 $220
Spending per transaction $2,291 $3,239
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 1.08% 1.27%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 8% 13%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 15% 17%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 13% 15%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million N/A 7%
Historical Trends at a Glance
Exhibit 33 presents a graphic summary of the trends in the City and County EAP program
profile since 2012. Specifically, the trends in overall monthly EAP spending, monthly spending
per employee, and the average transaction amount.
Exhibit 33: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, Cities and Counties, 2012 to 2015
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Cities and Counties | 50
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 34 breaks down the types of EAP models used by Cities and Counties. The most
popular option is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier), in use by 84% of
respondents.
Exhibit 34: Use of EAP Configurations, Cities and Counties
Percent of
Respondents Using
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 84%
Single-use accounts 26%
Buyer-initiated payments 16%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 35, 67% of City and County respondents report EAP spending growth,
22% report no change, and 11% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year (between
2014 and 2015).
Exhibit 35: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Cities and Counties, 2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Cities and Counties | 51
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 36(a) shows that 56% of programs expect an increase in EAP
spending over the next five years, while 32% expect no change. As a rationale for the expected
increase, 80% of the City and County programs cite efforts to target vendors.
Exhibit 36(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, Cities and Counties,
2015 to 2019
Exhibit 36(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively, spending is expected to increase 50% by 2019 (or an average of 10% per year).
Exhibit 36(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, Cities and
Counties
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 8% 9%
2017 26% 29%
2019 47% 50%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 9.4% 10.0%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Cities and Counties | 52
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 37 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 95%
of City and County respondents use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Half of the
respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under different
conditions. City and County respondents use EAP to pay for 50% of good and 34% of service
categories. The average time to full implementation for City and County EAP programs is just
over one year. Respondents pay an average of 91 suppliers with EAP, representing (on
average) 13% of their supplier base.
Eighty-six percent of City and County respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for
EAP acceptance, and 23% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of supplier
acceptance of EAP payment.
In addition, the majority (87%) of respondents formally review and audit their EAP spending
approval process, 57% have EAP provider insurance related to fraudulent spending, and 36% of
EAP transactions (on average) are manually reconciled.
The only things that evolve by themselves in an organization are
disorder, friction, and malperformance.
Peter Drucker ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Cities and Counties | 53
Exhibit 37: EAP Program Management Statistics, Cities and Counties
2015
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 95%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 50%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 50%
Services purchased with EAP^ 34%
Time to full implementation (in years) 1.04
Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 91
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 13%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 23%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 86%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 23%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 36%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 87%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 57%
* See description of the “goods” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by City and County respondents.
^ See description of the “services” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by City and County respondents.
Conclusion
Cities and Counties average $321,028 in EAP spending per month, with an average transaction
of $3,239. Average monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $220. All of these
benchmarks are up from comparable 2012 figures.
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 84% of respondents utilizing this method. Eighty-six percent of City and County
respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 23% are
“satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Colleges and Universities | 54
Chapter 7
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 38 presents current EAP spending norms for Colleges and Universities. The Exhibit
shows that average monthly EAP account spending is $980,764 at the beginning of 2015, up
from $536,887 at the beginning of 2012. Likewise, median monthly spending currently stands at
$375,000, up from $180,000 in 2012. The average EAP transaction amount for these
respondents is $2,014 in 2015, an increase from 2012. Average monthly spending per
employee has increased, going from $76 in 2012 to $138 in 2015. And, average annual EAP
spending as a percentage of budget has also increased from 0.71% in 2012 to 1.00% in 2015.
Finally, the Exhibit shows that College and University respondents currently use EAP to pay for,
on average, 9% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 14% of their $2,501 to $10,000
transactions, 10% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 5% of their $100,001 to $1
million transactions. EAP transaction capture in all spending categories (that were included in
our 2012 report) has increased since 2012.
Program Performance: Colleges and Universities
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Colleges and Universities | 55
Exhibit 38: EAP Program Statistics, Colleges and Universities, 2012 and 2015
(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 7,051 7,115
Age of program (in years) 2.09 3.49
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $536,887 $980,764
Median monthly EAP spending $180,000 $375,000
Monthly spending per employee $76 $138
Spending per transaction $1,198 $2,014
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 0.71% 1.00%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 5% 9%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 9% 14%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 7% 10%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million N/A 5%
Historical Trends at a Glance
Exhibit 39 presents a graphic summary of the changes in College and University EAP spending
statistics since 2012, including overall monthly EAP spending, monthly spending per employee,
and the average transaction amount.
Exhibit 39: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, Colleges and Universities, 2012 to 2015
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Colleges and Universities | 56
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 40 breaks down the types of EAP models used by Colleges and Universities. The most
popular option is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier), in use by 83% of
respondents.
Exhibit 40: Use of EAP Configurations, Colleges and Universities
Percent of
Respondents Using
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 83%
Single-use accounts 22%
Buyer-initiated payments 43%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 41, 53% of College and University respondents report EAP spending
growth, 33% report no change, and 14% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year
(between 2014 and 2015).
Exhibit 41: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Colleges and Universities, 2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Colleges and Universities | 57
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 42(a) shows that 63% expect an increase in EAP spending over the
next five years, while 26% expect no change. As a rationale for the expected increase, College
and University respondents cite to target vendors (94%) and high-dollar transactions (47%).
Exhibit 42(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, Colleges and
Universities, 2015 to 2019
Exhibit 42(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively, spending is expected to increase 64% by 2019 (or an average of 12.7% per year).
Exhibit 42(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, Colleges and
Universities
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 10% 12%
2017 31% 35%
2019 60% 64%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 12.0% 12.7%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Colleges and Universities | 58
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 43 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 97%
of Colleges and Universities use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Sixty-two percent
of the respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under
different conditions. College and university respondents use EAP to pay for 55% of good and
41% of service categories. The average time to full implementation for college and university
EAP programs is 1.27 years. Respondents pay an average of 199 suppliers with EAP,
representing (on average) 16% of their supplier base.
Eighty-two percent of College and University respondents engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 31% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of
supplier acceptance of EAP payment. In addition, forty-seven percent of respondents formally
review and audit their EAP spending approval process, two-thirds have EAP provider insurance
related to fraudulent spending, and 23% of EAP transactions (on average) are manually
reconciled.
Whenever an individual or business decides that success has been
attained, progress stops.
Thomas J. Watson ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Colleges and Universities | 59
Exhibit 43: EAP Program Management Statistics, Colleges and Universities
2015
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 97%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 62%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 55%
Services purchased with EAP^ 41%
Time to full implementation (in years) 1.27
Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 199
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 16%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 31%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 82%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 38%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 23%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 47%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 67%
* See description of the “goods” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Colleges and Universities.
^ See description of the “services” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Colleges and Universities.
Conclusion
Colleges and universities average $980,764 in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction of $2,014. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $138. All of these
benchmarks represent increases from corresponding 2012 data.
The most popular EAP configuration used is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or
supplier) with 83% of respondents utilizing this method. Eighty-two percent of College and
University respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 31%
are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results School Districts | 60
Chapter 8
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 44 presents current EAP spending norms for School Districts. The Exhibit shows that
average monthly EAP account spending is $337,294 at the beginning of 2015, up from
$179,164 at the beginning of 2012. Likewise, median monthly spending currently stands at
$110,000, up from $39,932 in 2012. The average EAP transaction amount for these
respondents is $3,434 in 2015, an increase from 2012. Average monthly spending per
employee has increased, going from $52 in 2012 to $94 in 2015. And, average annual EAP
spending as a percentage of budget has also increased from 1.33% in 2012 to 1.40% in 2015.
Finally, the Exhibit shows that School District respondents currently use EAP to pay for, on
average, 21% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 23% of their $2,501 to $10,000 transactions,
19% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 8% of their $100,001 to $1 million
transactions. EAP transaction capture in all spending categories (that were included in our
2012 report) has increased since 2012.
Program Performance: School Districts
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results School Districts | 61
Exhibit 44: EAP Program Statistics, School Districts, 2012 and 2015
(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 3,440 3,590
Age of program (in years) 2.31 2.91
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $179,164 $337,294
Median monthly EAP spending $39,932 $110,000
Monthly spending per employee $52 $94
Spending per transaction $2,018 $3,434
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 1.33% 1.40%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 18% 21%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 20% 23%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 17% 19%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million N/A 8%
Historical Trends at a Glance
Exhibit 45 presents a graphic summary of the changes in School District EAP spending
statistics since 2012, including overall monthly EAP spending, monthly spending per employee,
and the average transaction amount.
Exhibit 45: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, School Districts, 2012 to 2015
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results School Districts | 62
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 46 breaks down the types of EAP models used by School Districts. The most popular
option is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier), in use by 65% of respondents,
with 47% using single-use accounts as well.
Exhibit 46: Use of EAP Configurations, School Districts
Percent of
Respondents Using
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 65%
Single-use accounts 47%
Buyer-initiated payments 24%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 47, 76% of School District respondents report EAP spending growth, 12%
report no change, and 12% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year (between 2014
and 2015).
Exhibit 47: Type of Change in EAP Spending, School Districts, 2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results School Districts | 63
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 48(a) shows that 62% of programs expect an increase in EAP
spending over the next five years, while 29% expect no change. As a rationale for the expected
increase, School Districts cite efforts to target vendors (87%) and improvements in supplier
acceptance of EAP (53%).
Exhibit 48(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, School Districts,
2015 to 2019
Exhibit 48(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively, spending is expected to increase 51% by 2019 (or an average of 10.2% per year).
Exhibit 48(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, School Districts
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 8% 9%
2017 27% 30%
2019 48% 51%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 9.6% 10.2%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results School Districts | 64
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 49 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 85%
of School Districts use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Thirty-one percent of the
respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under different
conditions. School district respondents use EAP to pay for 59% of good and 43% of service
categories. The average time to full implementation for School Districts is 1.38 years.
Respondents pay an average of 144 suppliers with EAP, representing (on average) 18% of their
supplier base.
Eighty-three percent of school district respondents engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for
EAP acceptance, and 45% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance
of EAP payment.
In addition, the majority (73%) of respondents formally review and audit their EAP spending
approval process, 30% have EAP provider insurance related to fraudulent spending, and 17% of
EAP transactions (on average) are manually reconciled.
Continuous effort—not strength or intelligence—is the key to
unlocking our potential.
Winston Churchill ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results School Districts | 65
Exhibit 49: EAP Program Management Statistics, School Districts
2015
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 85%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 31%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 59%
Services purchased with EAP^ 43%
Time to full implementation (in years) 1.38
Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 144
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 18%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 45%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 83%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 9%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 17%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 73%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 30%
* See description of the “goods” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by School Districts.
^ See description of the “services” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by School Districts.
Conclusion
School districts average $337,294 in EAP spending per month with an average transaction of
$3,434. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $94. All of these benchmarks
represent increases from corresponding 2012 data.
Virtual accounts (65% of respondents) and single-use accounts (47%) are the most popular
EAP configurations. Eighty-three percent of School Districts engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, and 45% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of
supplier acceptance of EAP payment.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Not-for-Profit Organizations | 66
Chapter 9
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 50 presents current EAP spending norms for Not-for-Profit organizations. The Exhibit
shows that average monthly EAP account spending is $2.8 million at the beginning of 2015, up
from $1.5 million at the beginning of 2012. Likewise, median monthly spending currently stands
at $875,000, up from $453,000 in 2012. The average EAP transaction amount for these
respondents is $4,327 in 2015, an increase from 2012. Average monthly spending per
employee has increased, going from $261 in 2012 to $420 in 2015. And, average annual EAP
spending as a percentage of budget has also increased from 1.71% in 2012 to 2.00% in 2015.
Finally, the Exhibit shows that Not-for-Profit organizations currently use EAP to pay for, on
average, 17% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 22% of their $2,501 to $10,000 transactions,
21% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 7% of their $100,001 to $1 million
transactions. EAP transaction capture in all spending categories (that were included in our
2012 report) has increased since 2012.
Program Performance: Not-for-Profit Organizations
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Not-for-Profit Organizations | 67
Exhibit 50: EAP Program Statistics, Not-for-Profit Organizations, 2012 and 2015
(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
2012 2015
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 5,729 6,679
Age of program (in years) 3.24 3.91
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $1,497,004 $2,805,151
Median monthly EAP spending $453,000 $875,000
Monthly spending per employee $261 $420
Spending per transaction $2,049 $4,327
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 1.71% 2.00%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 14% 17%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 21% 22%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 20% 21%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million N/A 7%
Historical Trends at a Glance
Exhibit 51 presents a graphic summary of the changes in Not-for-Profit EAP spending statistics
since 2012, including overall monthly EAP spending, monthly spending per employee, and the
average transaction amount.
Exhibit 51: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, Not-for-Profit Organizations,
2012 to 2015
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Not-for-Profit Organizations | 68
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 52 breaks down the types of EAP models used by Not-for-Profit organizations. The
most popular option is virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier), in use by 66% of
respondents, while 45% use single-use accounts as well.
Exhibit 52: Use of EAP Configurations, Not-for-Profit Organizations
Percent of
Respondents Using
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 66%
Single-use accounts 45%
Buyer-initiated payments 20%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 53, 60% of Not-for-Profit respondents report EAP spending growth, 32%
report no change, and 8% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year (between 2014
and 2015).
Exhibit 53: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Not-for-Profit Organizations,
2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Not-for-Profit Organizations | 69
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 54(a) shows that 74% of programs expect an increase in EAP
spending over the next five years, while 13% expect no change. As a rationale for the expected
increase, Not-for-Profit organizations cite continued efforts to target vendors (75%).
Exhibit 54(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, Not-for-Profit
Organizations, 2015 to 2019
Exhibit 54(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively, spending is expected to increase 58% by 2019 (or an average of 11.7% per year).
Exhibit 54(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 9% 11%
2017 30% 34%
2019 55% 58%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 11.0% 11.7%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Not-for-Profit Organizations | 70
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 55 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 77%
of Not-for-Profit organizations use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Fifty-two percent
of the respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under
different conditions. Not-for-profit organizations use EAP to pay for 50% of good and 42% of
service categories. The average time to full implementation for Not-for-Profit EAP programs is
just under one year. Respondents pay an average of 226 suppliers with EAP, representing (on
average) 18% of their supplier base.
Ninety-two percent of Not-for-Profit organizations engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for
EAP acceptance, but only 19% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the current level of supplier
acceptance of EAP payment.
In addition, the majority (64%) of respondents formally review and audit their EAP spending
approval process, 50% have EAP provider insurance related to fraudulent spending, and 25% of
EAP transactions (on average) are manually reconciled.
.
It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and
resolute courage that we move on to better things.
Theodore Roosevelt ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Not-for-Profit Organizations | 71
Exhibit 55: EAP Program Management Statistics, Not-for-Profit Organizations
2015
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 77%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 52%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 50%
Services purchased with EAP^ 42%
Time to full implementation (in years) 0.95
Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 226
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 18%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 19%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 92%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 15%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 25%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 64%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 50%
* See description of the “goods” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Not-for-Profit organizations.
^ See description of the “services” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Not-for-Profit organizations.
Conclusion
Not-for-profit organizations average $2.8 million in EAP spending per month with an average
transaction of $4,327. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $420. All of these
benchmarks represent increases from corresponding 2012 data.
Virtual accounts (66% of respondents) and single-use accounts (45%) are the most popular
EAP configurations. Ninety-two percent of Not-for-Profit respondents engaged in an effort to
enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance, and (on average) pay 226 suppliers with EAP, representing
(on average) 18% of their supplier base.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 72
Chapter 10
This chapter examines the Electronic Accounts Payable (EAP) spending and
program management practices of Small Organizations. Small organizations are
defined in our survey as any entity (corporate, governmental, or not-for-profit)
with annual sales revenue (or budget) less than $25 million. Due to their size,
these organizations have been excluded throughout our report. For most of the
exhibits in this chapter, a comparison to the total sample (denoted as “All other
organizations”) will be provided to highlight the uniqueness of this segment.
This chapter will examine the following for Small Organization respondents:
(a) monthly EAP spending norms, (b) the percentage of transactions currently
paid with EAP (for various dollar ranges), (c) the percentage of respondents
using each type of EAP payment (e.g., single-use accounts, virtual accounts, or
buyer-initiated payments), (d) the goals for the EAP program, (e) past and future
growth of EAP spending, (f) some fundamental aspects of how these EAP
programs are managed, and (g) customer satisfaction with the EAP provider.
Program Performance: Small Organizations
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 73
EAP Spending Norms
Exhibit 56 presents current EAP spending norms for Small Organizations, alongside the norms
for the total sample. The Exhibit shows that average monthly EAP account spending is
$30,387, and that median monthly spending currently stands at $13,500. The average EAP
transaction amount for these respondents is $2,186 and monthly spending per employee is
$305. The average annual EAP spending as a percentage of sales revenue currently stands at
3.35%. The Exhibit also shows that Small Organizations currently use EAP to pay for, on
average, 11% of their $2,500 or less transactions, 12% of their $2,501 to $10,000 transactions,
3% of their $10,001 to $100,000 transactions, and 1% of their $100,001 to $1 million
transactions.
Compared to the total sample, Small Organizations report:
a younger average program (2.69 versus 3.36),
higher spending per employee ($305 versus $258),
a smaller average transaction amount ($2,186 versus $4,842), and
much lower capture of transactions paid with EAP.
Exhibit 56: EAP Program Statistics, Small and All Other Organizations
(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)
Small
Organizations All Other
Organizations
Organizational Statistics
Number of employees 100 9,889
Age of program (in years) 2.69 3.36
EAP Spending Metrics
Average monthly EAP spending $30,387 $2,550,063
Median monthly EAP spending $13,500 $550,000
Monthly spending per employee $305 $258
Spending per transaction $2,186 $4,842
Annual EAP spending as a percent of revenue/budget 3.35% 1.08%
Percent of Transactions Paid with EAP
Transactions of $2,500 or less 11% 17%
Transactions between $2,501 and $10,000 12% 21%
Transactions between $10,001 and $100,000 3% 18%
Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million 1% 8%
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 74
Use of Different EAP Models
Exhibit 57 breaks down the types of EAP models used by Small Organizations and all other
organizations. The most popular options for Small Organizations are single-use accounts and
virtual accounts (maintained by the buyer or supplier), used by 62% and 54% of respondents,
respectively. Compared to the total sample, Small Organizations are less likely to use virtual
accounts and buyer-initiated payments, but are more likely to use single-use accounts.
Exhibit 57: Use of EAP Configurations, Small and All Other Organizations
Small
Organizations All Other
Organizations
EAP Configuration
Virtual accounts* 54% 69%
Single-use accounts 62% 46%
Buyer-initiated payments 31% 26%
* Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
Goals for the Use of EAP
Exhibit 58 on the next page shows the importance ratings of various goals for the EAP program
at small and all other organizations. While both groups largely have the same goals in mind for
their EAP programs, Small Organizations are more concerned with improving cash flow (3.92
versus 3.51) and tracking of payments (4.25 versus 3.77), and less concerned with simplifying
the payment process (3.58 versus 4.02) and consolidating spending data (2.50 versus 2.91).
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication.
Leonardo da Vinci ‘’
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 75
Exhibit 58: Importance of Goal in Decision to Adopt EAP, Small and All Other Organizations
(with 1=Unimportant and 5=Very important)
Small
Organizations All Other
Organizations Difference
Financial Benefits
Improve cash flow by extending time to payment 3.92 3.51 0.41
Maximize rebates and incentives 4.31 4.56 -0.25
Avoid late fees by faster payment 3.31 3.07 0.24
Reduce currency exchange costs 1.58 1.71 -0.13
Obtain discounts by faster payment 3.33 3.00 0.33
Process Efficiency
Increase organizational efficiency associated with payments 3.75 4.05 -0.30
Simplify the process for paying suppliers 3.58 4.02 -0.44
Reduce the number of checks written 4.17 4.45 -0.28
Control and Transparency
Reduce potential for waste, fraud, and misuse 3.67 3.73 -0.06
Improve tracking of payments to suppliers 4.25 3.77 0.48
Obtain data that is not consistently provided with plastic cards 3.25 3.08 0.17
Consolidate spend data across different business units and software platforms to support discount discussions 2.50 2.91 -0.41
Improve compliance with contractual terms 2.75 2.93 -0.18
Buying Practices
Create new payment option within larger payment strategy for our suppliers 3.58 3.85 -0.27
Purchase goods and services that organization would not buy with plastic cards 2.50 2.65 -0.15
Purchase goods and services of higher value 2.69 2.56 0.13
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 76
Past Growth in EAP Spending
As shown in Exhibit 59, 70% of Small Organizations report EAP spending growth, 20% report
no change, and 10% report a decline in EAP spending over the past year (between 2014 and
2015). This is nearly identical to the reported change for the total sample (as shown in Chapter
4 of the Main Report).
Exhibit 59: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Small and All Other Organizations,
2014 to 2015*
* The change in EAP spending between 2014 and 2015 is based on a comparison of the respondent’s “current EAP spending” response (given on or about the survey date of January 2015) to their response to an inquiry for “average monthly spending one year ago” (which chronologically would mean on or about January 2014).
Expectations for Future EAP Spending
Looking forward, Exhibit 60(a) shows that 75% of Small Organizations expect an increase in
EAP spending over the next five years, while 20% expect no change. This is similar to the
expectations for all other organizations, with Small Organizations being slightly more likely to
expect an increase. As a rationale for the expected increase, Small Organizations (like other
organizations) expect to increase efforts in targeting vendors (64%).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 77
Exhibit 60(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, Small and All Other
Organizations, 2015 to 2019
Exhibit 60(b) shows the expected growth rates for EAP spending over the next five years.
Cumulatively, spending for Small Organizations is expected to increase 96% by 2019 (or an
average of 19.3% per year). For comparison, all other organizations expect an increase of 70%
by 2019 (an average of 14% per year).
Exhibit 60(b): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending,
Small and All Other Organizations
Small Organizations All Other Organizations
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Growth in EAP by Current Users
Overall Growth Rate
(with New Entrants to EAP Use)*
Cumulative Rate Change expected from the end of 2014 to the end of…
2015 14% 17% 11% 13%
2017 47% 53% 35% 39%
2019 91% 96% 66% 70%
Average Annual Rate
Average annual change expected over next five years 18.2% 19.3% 13.2% 14.0%
* The growth rate with new adopters is based on past relationships between growth rates with and without new adopters. We estimate that new entrants will influence EAP spend by 18% in 2015. Thereafter, the influence will decrease by 3% each year, as the number of organizations adopting EAP naturally declines.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 78
Program Management “At a Glance”
Exhibit 61 displays a selection of program management statistics. The Exhibit shows that 92%
of Small Organizations use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Fifty percent of the
respondents have a payment strategy that calls for different payment methods under different
conditions. Small organizations use EAP to pay for 50% of good and 29% of service categories.
The average time to full implementation for small EAP programs is just over six months, which
is the shortest average implementation time of any segment. Respondents pay an average of
32 suppliers with EAP, representing (on average) 29% of their supplier base.
Seventy-five percent of Small Organizations engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP
acceptance, but only 13% are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance
of EAP payment.
In addition, the majority (50%) of respondents formally review and audit their EAP spending
approval process, 29% have EAP provider insurance related to fraudulent spending, and 53% of
EAP transactions (on average) are manually reconciled.
Compared to all other organizations, Small Organizations report:
lower likelihood to have a payment strategy that uses different payment methods under
different conditions (50% versus 61%),
quicker average implementation time (0.53 versus 1.09 years),
one-sixth the average number of suppliers (32 versus 183), but represents a higher
portion of the supplier base (29% versus 17%),
lower likelihood to engage suppliers to accept EAP (75% versus 91%) and accordingly
are less satisfied with the level of supplier acceptance achieved (13% versus 24%),
higher average percentage of EAP transactions that are manually reconciled
(53% versus 24%), and
lower likelihood to formally review and audit EAP spending approval process
(50% versus 62%) or have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent
spending (29% versus 44%).
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 79
Exhibit 61: EAP Program Management Statistics, Small and All Other Organizations
Small
Organizations All Other
Organizations
Organizational Statistics
Percent that use plastic purchasing cards 92% 89%
Percent that have a payment strategy which calls for different payment methods under different conditions 50% 61%
Spending Expansion
Goods purchased with EAP* 50% 45%
Services purchased with EAP^ 29% 34%
Time to full implementation (in years) 0.53 1.09
State of Supplier Acceptance
Number of suppliers currently paid with EAP 32 183
Percent of supplier base paid with EAP 29% 17%
Percent that are “satisfied” or “very satisfied” with the level of supplier acceptance for EAP payment 13% 24%
Supplier Recruitment
Percent that engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers for EAP acceptance 75% 91%
Percent that changed payment terms to promote EAP acceptance (e.g., has your organization pushed check payment back from 30 to 60 days or has payment by EAP been expedited in some way). 0% 30%
Spending Reconciliation
Percentage of transactions that are manually reconciled 53% 24%
Risk Management
Percent that formally review and audit EAP spending approval process 50% 62%
Percent that have EAP issuer-provided insurance related to fraudulent EAP spending 29% 44%
* See description of the “goods” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Small Organizations.
^ See description of the “services” category in the Footnote to Exhibit 12. The figure represents the percentage of those categories captured by Small Organizations.
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 80
Customer Satisfaction with EAP Provider
Exhibit 61 displays the average importance and satisfaction rating (and gap between) of various aspects of the EAP provider
relationship and product for small and all other organizations. The Exhibit shows that compared to all other organizations, Small
Organizations are less satisfied with all elements. When analyzing the gaps between importance and satisfaction, Small
Organizations have a less negative gap for customer service and reporting compared to all other organizations, but a more negative
gap for economic and integration elements.
Exhibit 61: Importance of and Satisfaction with Aspects of EAP Use, Small and All Other Organizations
Small Organizations All Other Organizations
Importance Satisfaction Gap Importance Satisfaction Gap
Element of EAP Use
Overall economic relationship with EAP provider in relation to EAP 6.14 5.43 -0.71 5.78 5.65 -0.13
Overall customer service and support 5.57 5.29 -0.28 6.21 5.68 -0.53
Overall integration of EAP data with organizational information systems 6.00 4.86 -1.14 5.82 5.48 -0.34
Overall EAP reporting package 5.20 5.00 -0.20 6.32 5.65 -0.67
Program Performance: 2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Small Organizations | 81
Conclusion
Small organizations average $30,387 in EAP spending per month with an average transaction
of $2,186. Monthly EAP spending per employee is currently $305. Single-use accounts (62%
of respondents) and virtual accounts (54%) are the most popular EAP configurations.
In rating the importance of EAP program goals, Small Organizations, compared to all other
organizations, are more concerned with improving cash flow (3.92 versus 3.51) and tracking of
payments (4.25 versus 3.77), and less concerned with simplifying the payment process (3.58
versus 4.02) and consolidating spending data (2.50 versus 2.91).
Ninety-two percent of Small Organizations use plastic cards, and have an average
implementation time of just over six months, which is half that of all other organizations
(13 months). Seventy-five percent of Small Organizations have engaged in an effort to enlist
suppliers for EAP acceptance, and pay (on average) 32 suppliers with EAP, representing (on
average) 29% of their supplier base.
Small organizations are generally less satisfied than all other organizations with the four
elements of the EAP provider relationship and product, but have less negative satisfaction-
importance gaps than the total sample for customer service and reporting.
Risk comes from not knowing what you are doing.
Warren Buffett ‘’
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Acknowledgements | 82
The authors would like to express their sincere appreciation to Visa, MasterCard, and their EAP
providers—including Bank of America Merrill Lynch, BMO, Bank of the West, BBVA Compass,
Citibank, Comdata, Comerica, Commerce Bank, Electronic Funds Source, Fifth Third Bank,
J.P. Morgan Chase, PNC Bank, Scotiabank, SunTrust, UMB, U.S. Bank, Wells Fargo, WEX,
and Zions Bank—for their participation in the survey. Additionally, they would like to thank the
National Association of Purchasing Card Professionals and the National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing for apprising their members of survey availability. Finally, a hearty
thanks goes out to the over 800 participant organizations who took valuable time out of their
schedules to make this study a reality.
The authors would also like to particularly acknowledge the support and insight of James Brandt
and Nathan Palmer whose tireless assistance was critical to the success of the project. In
addition, the authors express their gratitude to Natalie Reinhart and Sandra Brandt for their
contribution to the analysis and representation of information. In addition, the authors thank
Tina Raynes of Washington University in St. Louis and Amit Khetan of Sumirama Technosoft
Ltd. for their assistance in the administration of the study. Last, but not least, the authors would
like to thank their family members for enduring the many long hours needed to bring these
results to the marketplace in a timely manner.
Acknowledgements
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results About the Authors | 83
Richard Palmer
is a Professor of Accounting and Copper Dome Faculty Fellow in the Harrison College of
Business at Southeast Missouri State University. Prior to academic work, he held management
positions in both public accounting and the banking industry. Richard is a frequent speaker at
commercial card conferences and is the author of over 50 professional and academic
publications, including award-winning articles about industry use of e-procurement tools and
bank commercial cards. His e-commerce and commercial card insights have been quoted in
U.S. Senate hearings, the Wall Street Journal, ABC News Good Morning America, CNN Money,
CBS News MarketWatch, American Banker, Business Finance, Purchasing, CFO, Cost
Management, Treasury and Risk Management, Financial Executive, Credit Card News, Cards
International, Credit Card Management, Federal Times, Government Procurement, and
Business Integration.
Mahendra Gupta
is a Virgil Professor of Accounting and Management at the Olin School of Business at
Washington University in St. Louis. He received his Ph.D. from Stanford University and M.S.
from Carnegie Mellon University. Mahendra has been a consultant to various manufacturing
firms and government agencies. His writings have appeared in top accounting and
management journals. Professor Gupta also served on the editorial board of several top
journals in the accounting profession and currently serves on the board of several organizations.
He has written extensively and speaks frequently on commercial card products.
About the Authors
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Outline to the Appendices | 84
Appendix A
Appendix A provides a breakdown of additional EAP program information by organization type
and size, including corporations (Fortune 500-Size, Large, and Middle Market) and government
and not-for-profit organizations (States and State Agencies, City and County Governments,
Colleges and Universities, School Districts, and Not-for-Profit Organizations).
Appendix B
Appendix B provides a breakdown of additional EAP program information by corporate industry
category groupings, including: (1) Agriculture, mining, and construction; (2) Finance, insurance,
banking, and real estate; (3) Manufacturing; (4) Professional, scientific, and technical services;
(5) Software and IT solutions; (6) Telecommunications, media, and entertainment;
(7) Transportation, warehousing, and delivery services; (8) Utilities; and (9) Wholesale and
retail trade.
Outline to the Appendices
DISCUSSION OF CATEGORIES
Survey participants identified themselves as being one of the following types of organizations: corporations, government agencies, or not-for-profit organizations.
Specifically, for purposes of analysis, the following groups were assembled:
(1) Public and private corporations;
(2) States and state government agencies;
(3) City and county government agencies;
(4) Public and private colleges and universities;
(5) School districts; and
(6) Not-for-profit organizations
Section 1. ORGANIZATIONAL STATISTICS
Table 1. Number of employees
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean 34,470 4,791 762 12,398 1,457 7,115 3,590 6,679
Top Quartile 45,000 5,700 841 19,250 2,363 10,698 5,458 7,500
Median 20,000 2,574 405 2,771 788 3,445 2,300 3,786
Bottom Quartile 6,663 1,314 200 390 355 1,325 1,450 1,700
Table 2. Age of EAP program
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Less than 1 year old 9% 12% 22% 10% 9% 9% 1% 10%
1 to 2 years 22% 30% 37% 20% 33% 37% 45% 21%
3 to 4 years 25% 25% 15% 27% 25% 24% 42% 33%
5 or more years old 44% 33% 26% 43% 33% 30% 12% 36%
APPENDIX A
BENCHMARK STATISTICS BY ORGANIZATION TYPE
The corporate category is subdivided into three groups based on annual sales revenue as follows: Fortune 500-Size corporations include companies reporting revenue equal to or greater than
$2 billion; Large Market corporations include companies with revenue equal to or greater than $500 million, but less than $2 billion; Middle Market companies reported revenue equal to or
greater than $25 million, but less than $500 million.
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 85
Section 2. BASIC EAP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Table 3. Total monthly EAP spending
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean $7,564,988 $1,527,719 $624,681 $1,310,804 $321,028 $980,764 $337,294 $2,805,151
Top Quartile $9,880,000 $1,800,000 $800,000 $1,962,304 $500,000 $1,235,501 $404,047 $3,000,000
Median $2,114,794 $900,000 $187,500 $444,000 $100,000 $375,000 $110,000 $875,000
Bottom Quartile $995,000 $500,000 $100,000 $97,403 $40,623 $129,929 $60,000 $200,000
Table 4. Total monthly EAP transactions
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean 1,535 342 160 465 99 487 98 648
Top Quartile 1,650 500 187 681 130 675 148 904
Median 633 175 78 400 50 175 54 250
Bottom Quartile 163 75 30 40 30 63 30 75
Table 5. Average EAP transaction amount *
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean $9,508 $7,446 $6,820 $3,289 $3,666 $3,298 $4,228 $5,627
Top Quartile $10,667 $9,806 $7,778 $4,213 $5,584 $4,960 $5,226 $7,063
Median $5,152 $5,000 $4,000 $3,061 $2,319 $2,666 $3,125 $4,881
Bottom Quartile $2,667 $2,589 $2,340 $875 $1,180 $1,355 $1,874 $1,963
* These figures represent an "average of organizational averages." This figure may not agree with the measure computed when all observations in a category are summed to create one group statistic.
Table 6. Highest EAP transaction in the past year
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean $326,011 $257,257 $121,035 $513,214 $240,899 $216,021 $110,925 $476,131
Top Quartile $500,000 $442,836 $150,000 $699,080 $301,900 $306,383 $125,020 $605,000
Median $140,782 $174,726 $86,166 $362,588 $147,500 $132,500 $87,500 $278,500
Bottom Quartile $47,075 $90,689 $42,504 $126,671 $86,450 $61,271 $37,000 $100,000
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 86
Section 2. BASIC EAP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES (Continued)
Table 7. Total monthly EAP spending per employee *
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean $422 $616 $1,252 $836 $303 $247 $121 $503
Top Quartile $525 $762 $1,452 $1,020 $443 $257 $165 $638
Median $110 $343 $667 $295 $211 $120 $100 $382
Bottom Quartile $37 $118 $292 $61 $103 $54 $44 $204
* These figures represent an "average of organizational averages." This figure may not agree with the measure computed when all observations in a category are summed to create one group statistic.
Table 8. Percent of transactions under $2,500 paid by EAP
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean 17% 14% 18% 15% 13% 9% 21% 17%
Top Quartile 22% 20% 25% 24% 15% 13% 25% 20%
Median 13% 10% 15% 15% 10% 7% 15% 12%
Bottom Quartile 5% 4% 6% 4% 5% 3% 6% 8%
Table 9. Percent of transactions $2,501 to $10,000 paid by EAP
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean 22% 18% 21% 28% 17% 14% 23% 22%
Top Quartile 28% 24% 30% 32% 20% 15% 30% 35%
Median 15% 15% 20% 20% 15% 11% 15% 17%
Bottom Quartile 6% 10% 10% 10% 9% 5% 8% 6%
Table 10. Percent of transactions $10,001 to $100,000 paid by EAP
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean 22% 17% 17% 26% 15% 10% 19% 21%
Top Quartile 25% 20% 25% 35% 20% 13% 23% 33%
Median 10% 13% 10% 18% 10% 7% 14% 10%
Bottom Quartile 5% 10% 4% 3% 5% 4% 9% 5%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 87
Section 2. BASIC EAP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES (Continued)
Table 11. Percent of transactions $100,001 to $1 million paid by EAP
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean 8% 9% 8% 5% 7% 5% 8% 7%
Top Quartile 10% 14% 10% 7% 12% 12% 10% 10%
Median 5% 8% 2% 3% 10% 6% 4% 3%
Bottom Quartile 2% 1% 0% 1% 5% 0% 0% 1%
Table 12. Annual EAP spending as a percentage of annual sales revenue (or budget) *
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean 0.75% 1.85% 3.69% 1.07% 1.71% 1.53% 1.87% 2.68%
Top Quartile 0.83% 2.41% 4.05% 1.51% 2.19% 2.06% 2.33% 3.68%
Median 0.36% 1.21% 1.99% 0.80% 1.33% 0.94% 1.58% 2.25%
Bottom Quartile 0.16% 0.51% 0.89% 0.28% 0.55% 0.39% 0.84% 1.20%
* These figures represent an "average of organizational averages." This figure may not agree with the measure computed when all observations in a category are summed to create one group statistic.
Section 3. THE ORGANIZATIONAL WALLET AND COST SAVINGS
Table 13. Calculated savings per transaction (cost of check payment minus cost of EAP payment) *
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Mean $23 $19 $16 $25 $24 $20 $20 $24
Top Quartile $25 $23 $22 $34 $27 $26 $24 $36
Median $11 $10 $9 $25 $14 $12 $17 $14
Bottom Quartile $6 $4 $4 $13 $5 $5 $11 $5
* These figures represent an "average of organizational averages." This figure may not agree with the measure computed when all observations in a category are summed to create one group statistic.
Table 14. EAP configurations in use *
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Virtual accounts ^ 67% 65% 67% 79% 84% 83% 65% 66%
Single-use accounts 42% 53% 58% 36% 26% 22% 47% 45%
Buyer-initiated payments 33% 30% 23% 21% 16% 43% 24% 20%
* Respondents could identify more than one option, so answers will not sum to 100%.
^ Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 88
Section 3. THE ORGANIZATIONAL WALLET AND COST SAVINGS (Continued)
Table 15. Percent of organizations that:
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Use plastic purchasing cards 92% 93% 87% 86% 95% 97% 85% 77%
Section 4. GOALS DRIVING THE ADOPTION AND USE OF EAP
Table 16. Importance of goals to organization in decision to adopt and use EAP
(where 1=Unimportant and 5=Very important)
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Purchase goods and services of higher
value 2.63 2.77 2.24 2.08 2.94 3.08 2.18 2.64
Improve cash flow by extending time to
payment 4.11 3.53 3.59 2.50 3.29 3.20 3.06 3.63
Maximize rebates and incentives for the
organization 4.69 4.50 4.70 4.58 4.68 4.04 4.35 4.67
Avoid late fees by faster (EAP) payment 2.69 3.15 2.72 2.67 3.72 3.16 3.35 3.45
Purchase goods and services that
organization would not buy with plastic
purchasing cards 2.83 2.98 2.36 2.73 3.12 2.83 2.94 2.32
Reduce currency exchange costs associated
with purchasing goods/services from vendors
outside of North America 1.83 1.72 1.65 1.17 1.53 1.80 1.65 1.70
Obtain discounts by faster (EAP) payment 2.66 3.15 2.55 3.00 3.35 3.17 2.88 3.43
Increase organizational efficiency associated
with payment of suppliers 4.11 4.38 3.91 3.92 4.47 4.24 3.88 3.79
Simplify the process for paying suppliers 3.86 4.13 4.10 3.67 4.72 4.04 4.12 3.74
Reduce the number of checks written 4.60 4.50 4.40 4.33 4.58 4.56 4.59 4.28
Create a new payment option within a larger
payment strategy for our supply base 3.83 4.18 3.77 3.33 4.31 4.08 3.41 3.72
Reduce potential for waste, fraud, and misuse
in procure-to-pay process 3.74 3.93 3.65 3.25 4.11 3.76 3.71 3.57
Improve tracking of payments to suppliers
(e.g., no checks lost in the mail) 3.80 4.00 3.66 3.58 4.11 3.76 3.71 3.66
Obtain data that is not consistently provided
with plastic card products 2.94 3.23 3.00 2.58 3.44 3.52 2.76 2.91
Consolidate spending data across different
business units and software platforms to
support discount discussions 2.83 3.10 2.78 2.58 3.33 3.28 2.29 2.93
Improve compliance with contractual terms
(e.g., identifying discounts to be received if
spending rises above a threshold) 2.60 3.23 2.72 2.92 3.67 3.28 2.41 2.93
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 89
Section 5. SUPPLIER RELATIONS
Table 17. Average number of suppliers paid with EAP
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Less than 10 4% 0% 4% 0% 20% 17% 0% 4%
10 to 25 4% 4% 20% 12% 20% 18% 1% 7%
26 to 50 23% 4% 11% 13% 13% 6% 33% 15%
51 to 100 8% 21% 30% 12% 20% 6% 25% 22%
101 to 500 34% 64% 26% 63% 20% 41% 33% 33%
More than 500 27% 7% 9% 0% 7% 12% 8% 19%
Table 18. Percent of organizations that:
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers to
accept payment by EAP 100% 93% 91% 91% 86% 82% 83% 92%
Table 19. Level of success in effort to enlist suppliers to accept EAP
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Successful or very successful 32% 39% 45% 38% 41% 50% 44% 38%
Neutral 48% 48% 41% 37% 50% 21% 45% 54%
Unsuccessful or very unsuccessful 20% 13% 14% 25% 9% 29% 11% 8%
Table 20. Satisfaction with level of supplier EAP acceptance
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Satisfied or very satisfied 19% 19% 24% 21% 23% 31% 45% 19%
Neutral 50% 42% 56% 40% 54% 31% 37% 44%
Unsatisfied or very unsatisfied 31% 39% 20% 39% 23% 38% 18% 37%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 90
Section 6. PROGRAM SETUP AND IMPLEMENTATION
Table 21. Percent of organizations that:
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Have a payment strategy which calls for
different payment methods under different
conditions 80% 72% 65% 56% 50% 62% 31% 52%
Table 22. Department that determines EAP payment suitability
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Accounts Payable 62% 60% 74% 67% 73% 58% 63% 91%
Purchasing 15% 13% 6% 25% 13% 26% 12% 6%
Finance/Treasury 8% 10% 12% 0% 7% 5% 19% 0%
Other 15% 17% 8% 8% 7% 11% 6% 3%
Table 23. Party most responsible for the setup and implementation of EAP payments
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Member of the organization 81% 71% 70% 67% 80% 79% 87% 65%
Bank or EAP provider 19% 29% 30% 33% 20% 16% 13% 35%
Other 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 5% 0% 0%
Table 24. Time to full implementation of EAP program spending
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Less than 3 months 0% 15% 8% 0% 7% 0% 17% 10%
3 to 6 months 25% 40% 50% 33% 36% 38% 17% 37%
7 to 11 months 18% 12% 18% 12% 14% 24% 17% 15%
1 to 2 years 32% 21% 16% 44% 35% 24% 33% 32%
3 to 4 years 21% 9% 6% 11% 8% 5% 8% 3%
Longer than 4 years 4% 3% 2% 0% 0% 9% 8% 3%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 91
Section 7. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Table 25. Level of EAP administrator time commitment (full-time equivalent)
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Less than 0.5 FTE 27% 25% 54% 50% 50% 47% 55% 52%
0.5 to 1.0 FTE 38% 58% 27% 25% 36% 20% 36% 36%
Greater than 1 35% 17% 19% 25% 14% 33% 9% 12%
Table 26. Percent of organizations that:
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Formally review and audit EAP spending
approval process 65% 57% 53% 53% 87% 47% 73% 64%
Support program administrator attendance at
"user conferences" to identify new ways to
expand EAP spending 69% 68% 64% 71% 79% 87% 60% 52%
Have an ongoing method of communicating
information about EAP program (e.g., bulletin
boards, newsletters) to organization 46% 17% 17% 13% 31% 27% 9% 16%
Table 27. Most important performance metric used to evaluate EAP program
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Dollar amount or number of EAP payments 31% 41% 29% 62% 17% 50% 25% 17%
Number of suppliers accepting EAP payment 19% 18% 11% 13% 25% 0% 13% 12%
Percentage of category spending or
transactions paid with EAP 8% 9% 0% 0% 0% 14% 0% 4%
Rebate or financial incentives received from
the EAP provider 42% 32% 60% 25% 58% 36% 62% 67%
Section 8. TRANSMISSION, INTEGRATION, AND RECONCILIATION OF EAP
Table 28. Method of EAP card number transmission
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Traditional e-mail 16% 23% 26% 0% 17% 0% 25% 8%
Secure e-mail 64% 61% 60% 86% 50% 62% 67% 64%
Fax or phone call 8% 12% 2% 0% 25% 8% 8% 12%
Post to shared web portal 12% 4% 7% 0% 8% 8% 0% 8%
Combination of methods 0% 0% 5% 14% 0% 22% 0% 8%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 92
Section 8. TRANSMISSION, INTEGRATION, AND RECONCILIATION OF EAP (Continued)
Table 29. Line of credit assigned to EAP card number
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
A predetermined, unchangeable,
agreed-upon amount 67% 68% 71% 43% 64% 60% 46% 48%
A range of dollar values 12% 16% 7% 29% 0% 20% 27% 24%
A choice between a range or single amount 21% 12% 20% 14% 36% 13% 18% 20%
Other 0% 4% 2% 14% 0% 7% 9% 8%
Table 30. Level of EAP spending integration with accounting information or ERP system
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
Not or minimally 20% 20% 27% 26% 27% 12% 18% 20%
Moderately 20% 36% 12% 25% 40% 13% 27% 8%
Significantly or completely 60% 44% 61% 49% 33% 75% 55% 72%
Table 31. Percentage of EAP transactions that are manually reconciled
Fortune 500-Size
Corporations
Large Market
Corporations
Middle Market
Corporations
States and State
Government
Agencies
City and County
Government
Agencies
Colleges and
UniversitiesSchool Districts
Not-for-Profit
Organizations
0% (automatic reconciliation) 38% 37% 33% 38% 21% 19% 37% 29%
1% to 30% 46% 46% 32% 52% 43% 56% 45% 42%
31% to 50% 4% 0% 2% 0% 7% 6% 0% 4%
More than 50% 12% 17% 33% 10% 29% 19% 18% 25%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix A | 93
DISCUSSION OF CATEGORIES
Corporate survey participants identified themselves as being in one or several industries using standard industrial classifications (SICs).
This appendix provides analysis for the following industry groupings:
(1) Agriculture, mining, and construction;
(2) Finance, insurance, banking, and real estate;
(3) Manufacturing;
(4) Professional, scientific, and technical services;
(5) Software and IT solutions;
(6) Telecommunications, media, and entertainment;
(7) Transportation, warehousing, and delivery services;
(8) Utilities; and
(9) Wholesale and retail trade
Section 1. ORGANIZATIONAL STATISTICS
Table 1. Number of employees
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean 3,642 9,960 6,935 10,694 7,035 8,178 7,851 3,823 7,315
Top Quartile 4,000 11,690 8,500 13,325 9,117 9,111 11,134 4,392 10,050
Median 928 3,100 2,400 2,700 3,650 3,650 2,881 1,493 2,400
Bottom Quartile 408 1,008 600 738 1,087 899 520 252 310
Table 2. Age of EAP program
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Less than 1 year old 7% 20% 12% 17% 19% 13% 15% 22% 12%
1 to 2 years 35% 24% 28% 32% 19% 25% 22% 33% 31%
3 to 4 years 29% 9% 23% 23% 37% 31% 24% 33% 20%
5 or more years old 29% 47% 37% 28% 25% 31% 39% 12% 37%
APPENDIX B
BENCHMARK STATISTICS BY INDUSTRY
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 94
Section 2. BASIC EAP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES
Table 3. Total monthly EAP spending
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean $1,257,295 $4,688,316 $1,111,551 $1,897,985 $968,500 $999,090 $1,715,595 $2,057,906 $1,728,229
Top Quartile $1,400,000 $4,747,350 $1,250,000 $2,107,397 $1,192,000 $1,200,000 $1,830,000 $2,348,934 $1,975,000
Median $702,385 $1,200,000 $500,000 $1,200,000 $770,000 $810,000 $600,000 $832,500 $800,000
Bottom Quartile $211,190 $450,000 $200,000 $620,000 $75,000 $220,000 $124,525 $119,942 $185,625
Table 4. Total monthly EAP transactions
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean 352 980 218 284 174 156 943 196 385
Top Quartile 475 1,100 316 434 233 183 1,236 288 461
Median 157 393 115 200 98 130 440 100 180
Bottom Quartile 51 93 40 88 23 28 80 30 50
Table 5. Average EAP transaction amount *
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean $5,726 $6,672 $5,778 $7,134 $4,279 $5,676 $6,039 $5,521 $6,584
Top Quartile $7,881 $7,639 $7,783 $7,833 $5,708 $7,889 $7,067 $7,171 $8,333
Median $3,875 $4,615 $4,283 $5,362 $4,000 $5,000 $4,800 $5,071 $4,792
Bottom Quartile $2,063 $2,210 $2,500 $3,685 $2,850 $3,487 $1,529 $3,053 $2,403
* These figures represent an "average of organizational averages." This figure may not agree with the measure computed when all observations in a category are summed to create one group statistic.
Table 6. Highest EAP transaction in the past year
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean $193,198 $345,692 $144,068 $383,103 $104,346 $153,750 $268,012 $231,651 $104,465
Top Quartile $238,081 $515,420 $206,649 $502,409 $128,365 $160,750 $369,041 $300,711 $125,000
Median $100,000 $125,000 $83,162 $321,587 $95,000 $91,500 $150,000 $194,626 $85,000
Bottom Quartile $75,000 $72,624 $41,671 $80,000 $85,000 $82,500 $61,333 $139,532 $58,336
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 95
Section 2. BASIC EAP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES (Continued)
Table 7. Total monthly EAP spending per employee *
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean $937 $668 $679 $740 $211 $616 $725 $476 $664
Top Quartile $1,190 $950 $800 $1,157 $330 $699 $813 $706 $691
Median $683 $498 $417 $473 $121 $211 $333 $448 $277
Bottom Quartile $396 $156 $117 $129 $72 $63 $180 $194 $108
* These figures represent an "average of organizational averages." This figure may not agree with the measure computed when all observations in a category are summed to create one group statistic.
Table 8. Percent of transactions under $2,500 paid by EAP
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean 17% 20% 17% 21% 14% 15% 23% 18% 22%
Top Quartile 20% 29% 21% 25% 17% 22% 28% 24% 25%
Median 10% 10% 15% 15% 10% 11% 15% 15% 20%
Bottom Quartile 5% 5% 5% 6% 5% 5% 10% 7% 5%
Table 9. Percent of transactions $2,501 to $10,000 paid by EAP
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean 22% 29% 20% 32% 16% 16% 27% 25% 27%
Top Quartile 26% 36% 25% 35% 22% 26% 34% 30% 30%
Median 20% 20% 18% 20% 10% 15% 20% 20% 18%
Bottom Quartile 10% 10% 11% 12% 6% 5% 11% 9% 10%
Table 10. Percent of transactions $10,001 to $100,000 paid by EAP
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean 22% 21% 19% 27% 14% 18% 22% 15% 23%
Top Quartile 25% 25% 22% 30% 20% 30% 25% 20% 25%
Median 11% 18% 15% 16% 10% 20% 15% 12% 15%
Bottom Quartile 5% 4% 6% 10% 3% 2% 7% 6% 5%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 96
Section 2. BASIC EAP PROGRAM PERFORMANCE MEASURES (Continued)
Table 11. Percent of transactions $100,001 to $1 million paid by EAP
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean 5% 7% 8% 11% 4% 8% 6% 9% 5%
Top Quartile 7% 10% 10% 16% 6% 10% 8% 10% 7%
Median 3% 4% 5% 10% 2% 6% 5% 8% 4%
Bottom Quartile 1% 1% 1% 3% 1% 2% 4% 2% 1%
Table 12. Annual EAP spending as a percentage of annual sales revenue (or budget) *
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean 2.17% 1.53% 1.50% 3.29% 0.62% 1.95% 1.62% 1.70% 2.50%
Top Quartile 2.95% 1.96% 1.81% 3.45% 0.87% 2.03% 1.91% 2.20% 3.14%
Median 1.24% 0.85% 0.92% 2.07% 0.53% 1.23% 1.03% 1.29% 1.99%
Bottom Quartile 0.74% 0.27% 0.45% 0.92% 0.17% 0.21% 0.47% 0.31% 0.30%
* These figures represent an "average of organizational averages." This figure may not agree with the measure computed when all observations in a category are summed to create one group statistic.
Section 3. THE ORGANIZATIONAL WALLET AND COST SAVINGS
Table 13. Calculated savings per transaction (cost of check payment minus cost of EAP payment) *
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Mean $17 $32 $19 $26 $18 $16 $21 $24 $19
Top Quartile $27 $50 $24 $32 $24 $22 $23 $33 $23
Median $13 $29 $12 $15 $12 $12 $14 $17 $8
Bottom Quartile $4 $15 $8 $7 $7 $9 $3 $6 $4
* These figures represent an "average of organizational averages." This figure may not agree with the measure computed when all observations in a category are summed to create one group statistic.
Table 14. EAP configurations in use *
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Virtual accounts ^ 60% 64% 59% 67% 70% 75% 60% 46% 82%
Single-use accounts 44% 46% 54% 47% 67% 63% 55% 40% 53%
Buyer-initiated payments 28% 36% 17% 30% 40% 38% 25% 40% 24%
* Respondents could identify more than one option, so answers will not sum to 100%.
^ Virtual accounts may be maintained by the supplier only, maintained by the buyer only, or a combination of the two.
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 97
Section 3. THE ORGANIZATIONAL WALLET AND COST SAVINGS (Continued)
Table 15. Percent of organizations that:
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Use plastic purchasing cards 91% 88% 92% 83% 90% 92% 90% 93% 85%
Section 4. GOALS DRIVING THE ADOPTION AND USE OF EAP
Table 16. Importance of goals to organization in decision to adopt and use EAP
(where 1=Unimportant and 5=Very important)
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Purchase goods and services of higher
value 2.38 2.91 2.10 2.48 1.78 2.14 2.38 2.89 2.50
Improve cash flow by extending time to
payment 4.00 3.22 3.92 3.31 3.44 3.86 3.31 4.00 3.75
Maximize rebates and incentives for the
organization 4.73 4.35 4.69 4.59 4.67 4.71 4.44 4.20 4.69
Avoid late fees by faster (EAP) payment 2.43 2.87 2.62 3.10 2.78 3.43 2.75 3.33 2.63
Purchase goods and services that
organization would not buy with plastic
purchasing cards 2.38 2.74 2.38 2.76 1.89 2.14 3.00 2.56 2.88
Reduce currency exchange costs associated
with purchasing goods/services from vendors
outside of North America 1.52 1.95 1.77 1.76 1.33 1.57 1.75 1.22 1.73
Obtain discounts by faster (EAP) payment 2.19 3.05 2.62 2.76 2.56 3.14 2.56 3.22 2.13
Increase organizational efficiency associated
with payment of suppliers 3.90 4.39 3.74 4.38 4.00 4.43 4.00 3.70 3.88
Simplify the process for paying suppliers 3.95 4.30 3.79 4.31 4.11 4.29 3.81 3.89 3.69
Reduce the number of checks written 4.55 4.48 4.36 4.62 4.33 4.43 4.31 4.10 4.38
Create a new payment option within a larger
payment strategy for our supply base 4.14 3.82 3.82 4.36 3.11 3.86 3.75 3.89 3.56
Reduce potential for waste, fraud, and misuse
in procure-to-pay process 3.73 4.04 3.33 3.79 3.22 3.71 3.38 3.78 3.88
Improve tracking of payments to suppliers
(e.g., no checks lost in the mail) 3.57 4.09 3.44 4.00 3.11 3.86 3.69 4.11 3.94
Obtain data that is not consistently provided
with plastic card products 2.67 3.43 2.79 3.21 2.89 3.14 2.88 3.11 3.19
Consolidate spending data across different
business units and software platforms to
support discount discussions 2.48 3.45 2.59 2.72 2.56 2.57 2.81 2.56 2.81
Improve compliance with contractual terms
(e.g., identifying discounts to be received if
spending rises above a threshold) 2.38 3.23 2.54 2.86 2.67 3.29 2.88 2.67 2.56
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 98
Section 5. SUPPLIER RELATIONS
Table 17. Average number of suppliers paid with EAP
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Less than 10 0% 6% 3% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 8%
10 to 25 6% 0% 22% 5% 17% 17% 13% 30% 23%
26 to 50 6% 0% 19% 1% 17% 16% 12% 30% 0%
51 to 100 47% 12% 19% 21% 33% 17% 38% 10% 8%
101 to 500 23% 70% 31% 63% 0% 17% 12% 30% 38%
More than 500 18% 12% 6% 5% 33% 33% 25% 0% 23%
Table 18. Percent of organizations that:
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Engaged in an effort to enlist suppliers to
accept payment by EAP 94% 82% 97% 95% 100% 90% 88% 100% 95%
Table 19. Level of success in effort to enlist suppliers to accept EAP
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Successful or very successful 56% 62% 23% 39% 28% 25% 37% 43% 50%
Neutral 19% 23% 61% 44% 29% 50% 50% 43% 40%
Unsuccessful or very unsuccessful 25% 15% 16% 17% 43% 25% 13% 14% 10%
Table 20. Satisfaction with level of supplier EAP acceptance
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Satisfied or very satisfied 24% 35% 19% 26% 14% 25% 18% 14% 17%
Neutral 47% 47% 49% 37% 29% 25% 64% 57% 66%
Unsatisfied or very unsatisfied 29% 18% 32% 37% 57% 50% 18% 29% 17%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 99
Section 6. PROGRAM SETUP AND IMPLEMENTATION
Table 21. Percent of organizations that:
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Have a payment strategy which calls for
different payment methods under different
conditions 83% 50% 72% 90% 86% 75% 55% 50% 64%
Table 22. Department that determines EAP payment suitability
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Accounts Payable 67% 59% 65% 67% 86% 67% 60% 88% 73%
Purchasing 11% 18% 17% 10% 0% 0% 20% 0% 9%
Finance/Treasury 11% 17% 9% 14% 14% 33% 10% 0% 9%
Other 11% 6% 9% 9% 0% 0% 10% 12% 9%
Table 23. Party most responsible for the setup and implementation of EAP payments
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Member of the organization 65% 83% 77% 67% 71% 67% 80% 63% 75%
Bank or EAP provider 35% 17% 23% 33% 29% 33% 20% 37% 25%
Table 24. Time to full implementation of EAP program spending
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Less than 3 months 10% 13% 3% 8% 29% 20% 17% 0% 0%
3 to 6 months 33% 43% 33% 60% 29% 40% 33% 61% 46%
7 to 11 months 24% 9% 17% 12% 14% 20% 17% 13% 23%
1 to 2 years 19% 18% 37% 12% 14% 20% 17% 13% 31%
3 to 4 years 14% 17% 7% 8% 14% 0% 16% 0% 0%
Longer than 4 years 0% 0% 3% 0% 0% 0% 0% 13% 0%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 100
Section 7. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION
Table 25. Level of EAP administrator time commitment (full-time equivalent)
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Less than 0.5 FTE 47% 13% 50% 23% 60% 40% 25% 57% 45%
0.5 to 1.0 FTE 13% 53% 27% 53% 20% 40% 25% 29% 45%
Greater than 1 40% 34% 23% 24% 20% 20% 50% 14% 10%
Table 26. Percent of organizations that:
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Formally review and audit EAP spending
approval process 47% 64% 45% 47% 75% 75% 88% 57% 64%
Support program administrator attendance at
"user conferences" to identify new ways to
expand EAP spending 73% 60% 55% 67% 50% 75% 63% 86% 80%
Have an ongoing method of communicating
information about EAP program (e.g., bulletin
boards, newsletters) to organization 27% 27% 27% 18% 20% 20% 43% 33% 27%
Table 27. Most important performance metric used to evaluate EAP program
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Dollar amount or number of EAP payments 40% 50% 29% 33% 25% 25% 25% 29% 18%
Number of suppliers accepting EAP payment 0% 17% 14% 7% 0% 0% 25% 28% 9%
Percentage of category spending or
transactions paid with EAP 0% 8% 3% 7% 0% 0% 13% 0% 9%
Rebate or financial incentives received from
the EAP provider 60% 25% 54% 53% 75% 75% 37% 43% 64%
Section 8. TRANSMISSION, INTEGRATION, AND RECONCILIATION OF EAP
Table 28. Method of EAP card number transmission
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Traditional e-mail 31% 44% 16% 21% 25% 25% 25% 15% 10%
Secure e-mail 56% 38% 69% 68% 75% 75% 50% 71% 90%
Fax or phone call 0% 6% 3% 0% 0% 0% 12% 14% 0%
Post to shared web portal 13% 6% 6% 11% 0% 0% 13% 0% 0%
Combination of methods 0% 6% 6% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 101
Section 8. TRANSMISSION, INTEGRATION, AND RECONCILIATION OF EAP (Continued)
Table 29. Line of credit assigned to EAP card number
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
A predetermined, unchangeable,
agreed-upon amount 80% 61% 73% 58% 67% 75% 90% 57% 70%
A range of dollar values 7% 6% 15% 21% 33% 25% 10% 14% 10%
A choice between a range or single amount 13% 28% 12% 21% 0% 0% 0% 15% 10%
Other 0% 5% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 14% 10%
Table 30. Level of EAP spending integration with accounting information or ERP system
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
Not or minimally 25% 31% 23% 21% 25% 25% 22% 28% 27%
Moderately 25% 31% 10% 21% 0% 0% 11% 29% 18%
Significantly or completely 50% 38% 67% 58% 75% 75% 67% 43% 55%
Table 31. Percentage of EAP transactions that are manually reconciled
Agriculture, Mining,
and Construction
Finance, Insurance,
Banking, and
Real Estate
Manufacturing
Professional,
Scientific, and
Technical Services
Software and IT
Solutions
Telecommunications,
Media, and
Entertainment
Transportation,
Warehousing, and
Delivery Services
UtilitiesWholesale and
Retail Trade
0% (automatic reconciliation) 40% 53% 36% 26% 67% 50% 11% 43% 18%
1% to 30% 33% 40% 39% 48% 33% 25% 56% 57% 27%
31% to 50% 0% 0% 4% 5% 0% 25% 0% 0% 0%
More than 50% 27% 7% 21% 21% 0% 0% 33% 0% 55%
2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Appendix B | 102
Top Related