[This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research...2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size Richard J. Palmer Professor

[This page intentionally left blank]

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.


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


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%).


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%


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%).


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


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%


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%).



Ninety-one percent of States and State Agencies have engaged in an effort to enlist



Program Performance: City and County Government Agencies

City and County respondents average $321,028 in EAP monthly spending with an average



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%).



Eighty-six percent of City and County respondents have engaged in an effort to enlist



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


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





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


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


Eighty-three percent of School District respondents have engaged in an effort to enlist



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


Between 2014 and 2015, 60% of Not-for-Profit organizations report an increase and 32%


Going forward, 74% of Not-for-Profit organizations expect an increase and 13% no change



Virtual accounts (66% of respondents) and single-use accounts (45%) are the most


Ninety-two percent of Not-for-Profit respondents have engaged in an effort to enlist



Habit is the nursery of errors.

Victor Hugo ‘’


Program Performance: Small Organizations

Small Organizations average $30,387 in EAP spending per month with an average


$305. Single-use accounts (62% of respondents) and virtual accounts (54%) are the most


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


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


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


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.”


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


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 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.


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


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 $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


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).


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 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 ‘’


Exhibit 12: EAP Program Management Statistics, Fortune 500-Size Corporations

2015


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.


“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






Median monthly EAP spending $3,000,000 $5,250,000










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.


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


Exhibit 14: EAP Program Statistics, Large Market Corporations, 2012 and 2015

(all numbers are averages unless otherwise noted)

2012 2015





Average monthly EAP spending $825,952 $1,527,719

Median monthly EAP spending $480,000 $900,000


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%


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



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






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*




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


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


Overall Growth Rate



2015 10% 12%

2017 33% 37%

2019 61% 65%

Average Annual Rate






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.




.

It’s hard to beat a person who never gives up.

Babe Ruth ‘’


Exhibit 19: EAP Program Management Statistics, Large Market Corporations

2015




Spending Expansion




Supplier Acceptance









Risk Management



* 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




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


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




2012 report) has remained steady or increased since 2012.

Program Performance: Middle Market Corporations


Exhibit 20: EAP Program Statistics, Middle Market Corporations, 2012 and 2015


2012 2015


Number of employees 658 762



Average monthly EAP spending $339,618 $624,681











Exhibit 21 presents a graphic summary of the changes in the Middle Market EAP spending



Exhibit 21: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, Middle Market Corporations,

2012 to 2015



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






As shown in Exhibit 23, 74% of Middle Market corporations report EAP spending growth, 23%


and 2015).

Exhibit 23: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Middle Market Corporations, 2014 to 2015*






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


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


Overall Growth Rate



2015 12% 14%

2017 37% 41%

2019 71% 75%

Average Annual Rate






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.



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 ‘’


Exhibit 25: EAP Program Management Statistics, Middle Market Corporations

2015




Spending Expansion




Supplier Acceptance









Risk Management



* 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.


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.


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


Exhibit 26: EAP Program Statistics, States and State Agencies, 2012 and 2015


2012 2015
















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



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






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*






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): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, States and State

Agencies


Overall Growth Rate



2015 13% 15%

2017 38% 43%

2019 84% 89%

Average Annual Rate






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.




I have failed over and over again in my life and this is why I

succeed.

Michael Jordan ‘’


Exhibit 31: EAP Program Management Statistics, States and State Agencies

2015




Spending Expansion




Supplier Acceptance









Risk Management



* 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




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


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




2012 report) has increased since 2012.

Program Performance: City and County Government


Exhibit 32: EAP Program Statistics, Cities and Counties, 2012 and 2015


2012 2015
















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



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






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*






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


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


Overall Growth Rate



2015 8% 9%

2017 26% 29%

2019 47% 50%

Average Annual Rate






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.




The only things that evolve by themselves in an organization are

disorder, friction, and malperformance.

Peter Drucker ‘’


Exhibit 37: EAP Program Management Statistics, Cities and Counties

2015




Spending Expansion




Supplier Acceptance









Risk Management



* 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.


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


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





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


Exhibit 38: EAP Program Statistics, Colleges and Universities, 2012 and 2015


2012 2015
















Exhibit 39 presents a graphic summary of the changes in College and University EAP spending



Exhibit 39: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, Colleges and Universities, 2012 to 2015



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






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*




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): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, Colleges and

Universities


Overall Growth Rate



2015 10% 12%

2017 31% 35%

2019 60% 64%

Average Annual Rate






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 ‘’


Exhibit 43: EAP Program Management Statistics, Colleges and Universities

2015




Spending Expansion




Supplier Acceptance









Risk Management



* 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




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





Finally, the Exhibit shows that School District respondents currently use EAP to pay for, on





Program Performance: School Districts


Exhibit 44: EAP Program Statistics, School Districts, 2012 and 2015


2012 2015
















Exhibit 45 presents a graphic summary of the changes in School District EAP spending



Exhibit 45: EAP Historical Trends Dashboard, School Districts, 2012 to 2015



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






As shown in Exhibit 47, 76% of School District respondents report EAP spending growth, 12%


and 2015).

Exhibit 47: Type of Change in EAP Spending, School Districts, 2014 to 2015*






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): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, School Districts


Overall Growth Rate



2015 8% 9%

2017 27% 30%

2019 48% 51%

Average Annual Rate






of School Districts use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Thirty-one percent of the


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.




Continuous effort—not strength or intelligence—is the key to

unlocking our potential.

Winston Churchill ‘’


Exhibit 49: EAP Program Management Statistics, School Districts

2015




Spending Expansion




Supplier Acceptance









Risk Management



* 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




Finally, the Exhibit shows that Not-for-Profit organizations currently use EAP to pay for, on





Program Performance: Not-for-Profit Organizations


Exhibit 50: EAP Program Statistics, Not-for-Profit Organizations, 2012 and 2015


2012 2015
















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



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






As shown in Exhibit 53, 60% of Not-for-Profit respondents report EAP spending growth, 32%


and 2015).

Exhibit 53: Type of Change in EAP Spending, Not-for-Profit Organizations,

2014 to 2015*






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): Projected Future Growth Rates for EAP Spending, Not-for-Profit

Organizations


Overall Growth Rate



2015 9% 11%

2017 30% 34%

2019 55% 58%

Average Annual Rate






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


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.




.

It is only through labor and painful effort, by grim energy and

resolute courage that we move on to better things.

Theodore Roosevelt ‘’


Exhibit 55: EAP Program Management Statistics, Not-for-Profit Organizations

2015




Spending Expansion




Supplier Acceptance









Risk Management



* 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



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


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



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


Small

Organizations All Other

Organizations


Number of employees 100 9,889












Transactions between $100,001 and $1 Million 1% 8%



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

EAP Configuration

Virtual accounts* 54% 69%

Single-use accounts 62% 46%

Buyer-initiated payments 31% 26%


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 ‘’


Exhibit 58: Importance of Goal in Decision to Adopt EAP, Small and All Other Organizations

(with 1=Unimportant and 5=Very important)

Small


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



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*



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%).


Exhibit 60(a): Type of Change Expected in EAP Spending, Small and All Other

Organizations, 2015 to 2019


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


Overall Growth Rate



Overall Growth Rate



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%





of Small Organizations use plastic purchasing cards in addition to EAP. Fifty percent of the


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.




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%).


Exhibit 61: EAP Program Management Statistics, Small and All Other Organizations

Small


Organizations


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%


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%


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.


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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%


Fortune 500-Size

Corporations

Large Market

Corporations

Middle Market

Corporations

States and State

Government

Agencies

City and County

Government

Agencies

Colleges and


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%



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


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


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%


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


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


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


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.


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


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


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


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


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%


Fortune 500-Size

Corporations

Large Market

Corporations

Middle Market

Corporations

States and State

Government

Agencies

City and County

Government

Agencies

Colleges and


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


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


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%


Section 6. PROGRAM SETUP AND IMPLEMENTATION


Fortune 500-Size

Corporations

Large Market

Corporations

Middle Market

Corporations

States and State

Government

Agencies

City and County

Government

Agencies

Colleges and


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


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


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


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%


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


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%


Fortune 500-Size

Corporations

Large Market

Corporations

Middle Market

Corporations

States and State

Government

Agencies

City and County

Government

Agencies

Colleges and


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


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


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%


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


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


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


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%


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


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


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


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


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


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


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 *


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


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


Table 6. Highest EAP transaction in the past year


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


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



Table 7. Total monthly EAP spending per employee *


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


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


Table 8. Percent of transactions under $2,500 paid by EAP


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


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%



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


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%



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


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%



Table 11. Percent of transactions $100,001 to $1 million paid by EAP


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


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) *


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


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%


Section 3. THE ORGANIZATIONAL WALLET AND COST SAVINGS

Table 13. Calculated savings per transaction (cost of check payment minus cost of EAP payment) *


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


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


Table 14. EAP configurations in use *


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


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.


Section 3. THE ORGANIZATIONAL WALLET AND COST SAVINGS (Continued)



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


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)


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


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


Section 5. SUPPLIER RELATIONS

Table 17. Average number of suppliers paid with EAP


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


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%



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


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


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


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


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


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%


Section 6. PROGRAM SETUP AND IMPLEMENTATION



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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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%


Section 7. PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Table 25. Level of EAP administrator time commitment (full-time equivalent)


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


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%



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


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


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


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


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


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%


Section 8. TRANSMISSION, INTEGRATION, AND RECONCILIATION OF EAP (Continued)

Table 29. Line of credit assigned to EAP card number


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


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


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


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


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


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%


Documents

[This page intentionally left blank] - RPMG Research...2015 Electronic Accounts Payable Benchmark Survey Results Program Profiles by Organization Type and Size Richard J. Palmer Professor