Zahlungsfehler durch fehlende Drei‑Wege‑Prüfung

Definition

Australian AP/receiving best practice requires at least two‑ or three‑way matching of supplier invoices to purchase orders and receiving reports to prevent overcharging and paying for incorrect quantities or undelivered goods.[1][2][5][6] In high‑volume grocery environments with thousands of SKUs and frequent deliveries, manual reconciliation is error‑prone; even small unit‑price or quantity deviations (e.g. invoicing 55 cartons where 50 were received) commonly slip through when AP teams are under time pressure.[4] International AP studies consistently find 0,1–0,2 % of vendor spend lost to duplicate payments and 0,2–0,8 % to pricing/quantity errors when controls are weak; applied to a supermarket with AUD 50–100m annual COGS, this implies AUD 250k–1m of preventable overpayments per year (logic‑based extrapolation from control objectives described in reconciliation guides).[2][3][5] Automated three‑way matching and tolerance controls are explicitly promoted as a way to "boost your bottom line" by preventing such leakages.[9]

Why This Matters

The Pitch: Retail grocery players in Australia 🇦🇺 waste schätzungsweise 0,5–1,0 % ihres Wareneinkaufsvolumens jährlich durch Überzahlungen und fehlerhafte Rechnungen im Wareneingang und der Rechnungsabstimmung. Automation of three‑way matching and duplicate‑invoice controls eliminates most of this risk.

Affected Stakeholders

Leiter Einkauf, Leiter Finanzen/CFO, Accounts-Payable-Team, Leiter Warenwirtschaft/Logistik, Filialleiter, Category Manager

Related Business Risks