Transportation Payment Benchmark Study: A Step Forward

Transcription

1 In partnership with Transportation Payment Benchmark Study: A Step Forward Written By: James Blaeser Publisher Published March 2011 Sponsored by:

2 Executive Summary ii American Shipper, in partnership with the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA has successfully benchmarked nearly 300 payers and payees on their transportation invoice processing and payment practices and systems. This is the third and final report in a series designed to explore the life cycle of freight transportation spend in three segments procurement, execution (ITMS) and settlement. Each report separates successful firms or winners from the average in an attempt to highlight best practices. All reports are made available for download at EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Still No Winners American Shipper research studies aim to highlight actionable best practices by comparing top performers or winners against the average survey respondent. Other research studies show how the best-in-class are managing procurement, compliance and transportation functions among others. Like last year we found that it was not possible to discern winning payment practices that are widely applicable. Two factors are at work in this market, making it unique by comparison to other functions American Shipper has benchmarked. First, large companies with complex networks have considerably more freight invoices to handle, ensuring that their needs are materially different from their smaller counterparts. Best practices for one group do not necessarily apply to any other group. Second, payment remains a group or community-based exercise where companies are only as good as their weakest supply chain partner. It takes at least two parties to settle a transaction; sometimes more. It takes hundreds or thousands of partners operating on the same standards to create a streamlined, efficient payment market.

3 Progress... But Not Enough Payments to logistics service providers (LSPs) are moving to electronic means, such as ACH, at a noticeable rate. Considerably more transactions are settled electronically this year as compared to last. Progress in terms of the dollars transacted is a bit slower but evident nonetheless suggesting that some companies are still hesitant to electronically transfer large sums of money. It is difficult to argue that the transportation industry is still behind the curve when it comes to conducting basic online transactions. However, to ensure progress, LSPs and their customers must move payments to an electronic environment. The benefits of e-banking are clear and will become impossible to ignore as the business community at large moves in this direction. iii Managing Disputes Last year s results exposed dispute resolution as a major point of failure in the invoice processing and payment function. One quarter of study respondents employ a workflow tool to manage disputes. Figures 7 and 8 clearly show payers continue to wrestle with this stubborn, manual process. Consider that the average survey respondent involves at least two departments (2.1 departments to be exact) in the dispute resolution process. It is easy to understand how this can become quite complex particularly for large companies that involve more departments. This year s survey looked a bit harder at this aspect of the payment process, specifically the availability and use of workflow applications. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

4 iv EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Auditing The Market for Systems Survey results show that the average respondent audits 77 percent of its invoices received from LSPs. Only 48 percent of the respondents review every invoice. The other 52 percent who claim they are auditing are really doing themselves a disservice. An incomplete audit is not an effective audit. Three quarters of respondents claim the invoices they receive from LSPs are accurate 90 percent of the time or more. This could be considered better than what was expected which is a positive, but compared against other industries, such as utilities, this is very poor. Consider for example the problems that would arise if your home electric bill was wrong 10 percent of the time or more. Auditing 100 percent of invoices received is only part of the story. Payers should be auditing all the variables in their bills for inaccuracies. Study results show that payers are very focused on the obvious issues, such as rates, accessorials, duplicate invoices, and fuel surcharge. Less obvious trouble areas, such as Inco terms, taxes, and currency conversions, are overlooked by most payers. Large companies, presumably those with complex supply chains, are far more likely to leverage advanced payment systems or outsource the process in part or altogether. Small and medium companies, with lower volumes to manage, tend to get by with a manual process. Large companies see strategic purpose for payment systems. Both visibility of data (85 percent) and costs (70 percent) rank as top drivers to technology adoption. Small and medium-size firms on the other hand use these tactically to automate accounting practices (85 percent) and save costs (85 percent). The scale and complexity of a company s supply chain will dictate the level and type of benefit it sees from a systems-based approach.

5 Table of Contents Executive Summary... ii Section I: Introduction... 3 > Methodology... 3 > Winners... 3 > Terminology... 4 > Hypotheses... 4 Section II: Demographics... 5 Section III: The State of Freight Payment Section IV: Payments Section V: Dispute Resolution Section VI: Auditing Section VII: Technology Section VIII: Payees Section IX: Take Aways & Best Practices TABLE OF CONTENTS Appendix A: About Our Sponsors > Freightgate > INTTRA > US Bank Transportation Solutions Appendix B: About Our Partner > Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA)... 28

6 Figures FIGURE 1: Industry Segments...5 FIGURE 2: Company Size...5 FIGURE 3: Modes Managed...6 FIGURE 4: IT Spend as Percent of Revenue...6 FIGURE 5: Job Titles...7 FIGURE 6: Overall Satisfaction Automated vs. Manual... 8 FIGURE 7: International Payment Process FIGURE 8: Domestic Payment Process... 9 FIGURE 9: Central vs. Regional Payment Processes FIGURE 10: Invoices Processed per Year, per FTE FIGURES FIGURE 11: Payment With Checks 2010 vs FIGURE 12: Average Timeframe to Pay FIGURE 13: Does Your Company Employ a Workflow Tool to Manage Dispute Resolutions?...14 FIGURE 14: Auditing Practices 2011 vs FIGURE 15: Accuracy of Invoices Based on Audit...16 FIGURE 16: What Do You Audit?...17 FIGURE 17: Current Delivery Model...18 FIGURE 18: Plans to Buy/Replace/Upgrade Company Size...19 FIGURE 19: Inhibitors to Adoption...20 FIGURE 20: Drivers to Adoption...21 FIGURE 21: Future Delivery Model...22 FIGURE 22: Payee Process FIGURE 23: Timeframe to Generate an Invoice...24 FIGURE 24: Cost of Generating an Invoice...24 FIGURE 25: Timeframe to Respond to Disputes...25 FIGURE 26: Means to Respond to Disputes...25

7 Section I: Introduction Welcome to American Shipper s second annual study of transportation payment practices and technologies. These reports are designed to provide readers with a clear picture of the state of the transportation industry, emerging trends and best practices. METHODOLOGY American Shipper, in partnership with the Retail Industry Leaders Association (RILA), has successfully benchmarked nearly 300 payers and payees on their transportation invoice processing and payment practices and systems. Participants completed a 45-question survey covering all modes of international and domestic freight transportation. This is the third and final report in a series designed to explore the life cycle of freight transportation spend in three segments procurement, execution (ITMS) and settlement. Each report separates successful firms or winners from the average in an attempt to highlight best practices. All reports are made available for download at WINNERS American Shipper research studies aim to highlight actionable best practices by comparing top performers or winners against the average survey respondent. Other research studies show how the best-in-class are managing procurement, compliance and transportation functions among others. Like last year we found that it was not possible to discern winning payment practices that are widely applicable. 3 Section I: Introduction Two factors are at work in this market, making it unique by comparison to other functions American Shipper has benchmarked. First, large companies with complex networks have considerably more freight invoices to handle, ensuring that their needs are materially different from their smaller counterparts. Best practices for one group do not necessarily apply to any other group. Second, payment remains a group or community-based exercise where companies are only as good as their weakest supply chain partner. It takes at least two parties to settle a transaction; sometimes more. It takes hundreds or thousands of partners operating on the same standards to create a streamlined, efficient payment market.

8 TERMINOLOGY Payer/Payee In the context of this study payers are shippers and intermediaries who pay for transportation services. Payees (also known as billers) are carriers or intermediaries who collect money for their services. LSP/3PL Logistics service providers are companies that charge a fee for supply chain services including but not limited to transportation, distribution, warehousing, customs services. A third party logistics provider (3PL) is a non asset-based logistics service provider (LSP). 4 Section I: Introduction Automated/Manual Many of the data points illustrated within these pages break down the differences between companies that automate international transportation management versus those that manually handle this process. In this context, automated companies employ at least one application to support their transportation invoice processing and payment function. Automated does not mean human interaction has been entirely eliminated. Likewise, manual does not mean these firms do not use , fax and other technologies. There is an assumption that basic computing power is ubiquitous in the logistics management field. HYPOTHESES Each American Shipper study works against a set of assumptions that we seek to prove or disprove through the benchmarking process. For the most part these study results were in line with expectations. Assumption 1 The gap (some call it a chasm ) between the level of sophistication of international and domestic transportation payment would remain unchanged. Reality Figures 7 and 8 illustrate a story similar to last year s report. Domestic transportation is on the whole more automated and streamlined. Assumption 2 Study results will show progress towards improving the payment process, particularly as it pertains to electronic banking. Reality: Readers are reporting (see figure 11) a shift from hard copy checks to ACH and other forms of electronic banking. Assumption 3 Auditing processes are prevalent but not thorough. Reality Nearly everyone claims to audit invoices at some point or another (see figure 15), but less than half audit every invoice and the review is generally incomplete (see figure 17).

9 Section II: Demographics Data points illustrated in this study are the aggregate of responses from close to 300 qualified participants. This includes 3PLs, carriers, and shippers of all kinds. Retail/wholesale (31 percent), 3PLs (22 percent) and manufacturing (process 17 percent, discrete 13 percent) make up a the majority of survey participants. Nearly half of the companies participating in this survey are greater than $1 billion in annual sales. Many of the data points in the study compare these large firms against the remaining small and medium-size businesses with less than $1 billion in annual sales. 5 FIGURE 1: Industry Segments 3% 1% 3% 9% 13% 17% 22% 31% Retail/Wholesale 3PL/Intermediary (includes Forwarders, NVOCC, OTI, Brokers) Process manufacturing Discrete manufacturing International Carrier (includes Ocean, Air, Cross-border) Raw materials/commodities Domestic Carrier (includes TL, LTL, Rail) Section II: Demographics Engineering/Construction 286 total respondents FIGURE 2: Company Size 6 59% Less than $100 million 5 49% 49% $100 million to $1 billion % 32% 15% 26% 29% 22% Greater than $1billion 1 Average Automated Manual 172 total respondents

10 American Shipper readers manage multiple in some cases, all modes of international and domestic transportation. Therein lays the biggest challenge in effectively managing the freight payment function. Each mode has distinctly different payment standards and protocols. Roughly three quarters of survey respondents spend between 1 percent and 5 percent of annual revenue on information technology. Eleven percent is particularly aggressive spending more than 5 percent. FIGURE 3: Modes Managed LTL 92% 6 Truckload Parcel/package Other Airfreight 87% 86% 92% Section II: Demographics FCL Ocean LCL Ocean Rail/intermodal 65% Ocean transport (other, non-containerized) 41% % 83% 139 total respondents FIGURE 4: IT Spend as Percent of Revenue 2% 11% 14% None Less than 1 percent 1 to 3 percent 33% 4 3 to 5 percent More than 5 percent 139 total respondents

11 More than 70 percent of survey respondents represent middle management 30 percent directors and 42 percent manager level. This benchmarking exercise offered a parallel questionnaire for those respondents who are responsible for issuing invoices and collecting payments. This group of payees includes all carriers and those 3PLs who qualified. This segment of the survey has 103 total participants. Section 8 of this document outlines those results. FIGURE 5: Job Titles 1% 3% 9% 14% C-Level (CEO,CIO,CFO, etc) 7 Executive (SVP, VP, GM, etc.) Director 42% 3 Manager Staff Other, please specify 155 total respondents Section II: Demographics

12 Section III: The State of Freight Payment Overall the state of freight payment in 2011 is not all that different from 2010, but there are a few key areas where the market has progressed. Satisfaction levels remain roughly the same as Respondents, particularly those with an automated or systems-based approach, feel confident in their ability to process and pay freight invoices efficiently. FIGURE 6: Overall Satisfaction Automated vs. Manual 5 48% Automated % Manual 33% 31% 3 Section III: The "State" of Freight Payment % 8% Excellent Good Fair 2% Poor 2 The gap between international and domestic processes remains, but again it is not as profound as one would assume. Historically, the domestic market was faster to adopt an electronic settlement environment, because it is less complex than international. 2% Very poor 189 total respondents Domestic shipments are executed between parties using the same language and currency system eliminating major variables. In addition, domestic transportation fee structures, particularly surcharges, are simpler than those used by ocean carriers. The domestic market is ahead in terms of automating basic functionality like invoice receipt and validation. Dispute resolution remains a sticking point for both markets.

13 Compared to 2010 results, the overall blend of automated, manual and outsourced activities is remarkably similar, with the exception of the international freight payment segment. It appears the market is moving away from manual payment processing in favor of electronic means, such as ACH. FIGURE 7: International Payment Process 10 17% 19% 12% 1 19% 2 Outsourced 8 29% 25% 11% 77% 29% 49% 22% Automated Manual 6 55% 56% 6 58% Invoice Receipt Validation Dispute Resolution FIGURE 8: Domestic Payment Process 10 19% 2 14% 17% 8 45% 37% 69% Approval 14% 38% 32% Payment Audit 2 23% Outsourced Automated 52% Manual 29% Section III: The "State" of Freight Payment % 43% 48% 48% 28% 2 Invoice Receipt Validation Dispute Resolution Approval Payment Audit

14 Time and again centralization of processes proves to be an effective practice allowing companies to leverage their scale. While it s remarkable that the majority of companies subscribe to this best practice across their payment process, it does raise questions about the other 30 percent. FIGURE 9: Central vs. Regional Payment Processes % 5% 5% 4% 13% 11% 12% 12% 13% 14% 16% 17% 4% 5% 12% 79% 7% 11% 13% N/A Mix Regional % 71% 68% 67% 69% Central Section III: The "State" of Freight Payment 4 2 Invoice Receipt Validation Dispute Resolution Approval Payment Audit

15 The gap between large companies (more than $1 billion in sales per annum) and their small and medium-size counterparts (less than $1 billion in sales) is astounding when measured by the number of freight invoices processed per full-time equivalent employee (FTE) per year. However, the enormous gap in productivity levels is a product of the size and complexity of the company s supply chain and the number of invoices it generates. Large companies need to automate just to keep up with the deluge of bills and, as a result, see considerably higher productivity levels among other benefits. Small and medium-size companies can get their hands around their operation with less sophisticated means. FIGURE 10: Invoices Processed per Year, per FTE 11 Medium & Small cos Study Average Large Cos ,622 4,968 6,780 18,560 71,205 10,000 20,000 30,000 40,000 50,000 60,000 70,000 80,000 Domestic Invoices International Invoices 158 total respondents Section III: The "State" of Freight Payment

16 Section IV: Payments Payments to logistics service providers (LSPs) are moving to electronic means, such as ACH, at a noticeable rate. Considerably more transactions are settled electronically this year as compared to last. Progress in terms of the dollars transacted is a bit slower but evident nonetheless suggesting that some companies are still hesitant to electronically transfer large sums of money. 12 It is difficult to argue that the transportation industry is still behind the curve when it comes to conducting basic online transactions. However, to ensure progress, LSPs and their customers must move payments to an electronic environment. The benefits of e-banking are clear and will become impossible to ignore as the business community at large moves in this direction. FIGURE 11: Payment With Checks 2010 vs Section IV: Payments 10 8 In terms of total dollars transacted In terms of total transactions 36% 41% 31% 45% ACH/Other Checks 6 64% 59% 69% 55%

17 The terms around the timeframe to remit payment to LSPs remain roughly the same as Like last year, retailers and 3PLs are paying their bills noticeably faster than manufacturers. Payment timeframes are specified by contract, but that does not mean those terms are always followed. In an environment where cash is king, it is surprising to see that payment timeframes have not been pushed further out. FIGURE 12: Average Timeframe to Pay % 5 Retailers Manufacturing 4 35% 35% 36% 3PL/Intermediary % 25% 17% 1 8% 9% Less than 15 days days days 5% days 1% 4% days 185 total respondents Section IV: Payments

18 14 Section V: Dispute Resolution Last year s results exposed dispute resolution as a major point of failure in the invoice processing and payment function. Figures 7 and 8 clearly show payers continue to wrestle with this stubborn, manual process. Consider that the average survey respondent involves at least two departments (2.1 departments to be exact) in the dispute resolution process. It is easy to understand how this can become quite complex particularly for large companies that involve more departments. This year s survey looked a bit harder at this aspect of the payment process, specifically the availability and use of workflow applications. These applications manage tasks such as automatic routing, partially automated processing and integration between different functional software applications and hardware systems that contribute to the value-addition process underlying the workflow. 1 1 Source: Article: Workflow applications. Section V: Dispute Resolution One quarter of study respondents employ a workflow tool to manage disputes. 3PLs are the most likely to have such technology which makes sense. 3PLs tend to have more supply chain technology in general. FIGURE 13: Does Your Company Employ a Workflow Tool to Manage Dispute Resolutions? % 73% 64% Yes No % 27% 36% Retail Manufacturing 3PL 186 total respondents

19 Section VI: Auditing Results from the 2010 benchmark study highlighted auditing as another troublesome issue for payers. This year s survey included more questions related to the nature and depth of the auditing process. Survey results show that the average respondent audits 77 percent of its invoices received from LSPs. Only 48 percent of the respondents review every invoice. The other 52 percent who claim they are auditing are really doing themselves a disservice. An incomplete audit is not an effective audit. Auditing practices did not change drastically year-over-year. It appears some payers have chosen to audit prior to payment, instead of both before and after. Interestingly payers managing this process in a manual or spreadsheet-based manner were only slightly less likely to conduct an audit in some fashion, with just 6 percent reporting they do not audit at all. Auditing remains ubiquitous among payers, but how effective is it? 15 FIGURE 14: Auditing Practices 2011 vs % 42% 39% Section VI: Auditing % 8% 3% 3% Prior to payment Post payment Both None 183 total respondents

20 Three quarters of respondents claim the invoices they receive from LSPs are accurate 90 percent of the time or more. This could be considered better than what was expected which is a positive, but compared against other industries, such as utilities, this is very poor. Consider for example the problems that would arise if your home electric bill was wrong 10 percent of the time or more. Bear in mind this is a multimodal view of the issue and some modes are worse than others. It is likely that industries with more complex rate schemes (such as ocean transport) are worse while those with more straight forward pricing rate higher in terms of accuracy. 16 FIGURE 15: Accuracy of Invoices Based on Audit 2% 6% 95% or more Section VI: Auditing 16% 34% 41% 90 95% 80 89% 70 79% Less than 7 74 total respondents

21 Auditing 100 percent of invoices received is only part of the story. Payers should be auditing all the variables in their bills for inaccuracies. Study results show that payers are very focused on the obvious issues, such as rates, accessorials, duplicate invoices, and fuel surcharge. Less obvious trouble areas, such as Inco terms, taxes, and currency conversions, are overlooked by most payers. FIGURE 16: What Do You Audit? Accessorials (rate, validity, etc) 9 93% 99% 3PL/Intermediary Manufacturing Transportation rates 10 94% 9 Retail 17 Duplicate invoices Fuel surcharge Incoterms Taxes 25% 25% 35% 34% 31% 33% 75% 88% 89% 8 85% 82% Section VI: Auditing Currency conversion 24% 35% 39% Other, please specify 1 6% 7% total respondents

22 Section VII: Technology Large companies, presumably those with complex supply chains, are far more likely to leverage advanced payment systems or outsource the process in part or altogether. Small and medium companies, with lower volumes to manage, get by with a manual process. FIGURE 17: Current Delivery Model A mix or hybrid of all of these 6% 24% 29% Small Companies Medium Companies 18 Outsourced to another service provider 1 18% 25% Large Companies Section VII: Technology Application Based (including TMS or ERP-based) Manual Outsourced to 3PLs 12% 1 22% 16% 8% 6% 47% 65% None of these 3% total respondents

23 Overall market activity remains unchanged from 2010, roughly 24 percent of the market has budget to address payment technology in the next 24 months. What s more interesting is that nearly all of those with budget are large companies. There is a little or no market activity among the small and medium-size company segments. FIGURE 18: Plans to Buy/Replace/Upgrade Company Size 10 89% Large Companies 8 74% Medium Companies 6 59% Small Companies No plans to buy or replace 25% 4% 6% 9% 1 Budgeted within the next 12 months Budgeted within the next months 7% 12% 6% On our company s 5-year plan 163 total respondents Section VII: Technology

24 Companies that are not in the market for payment systems cite the status-quo as the largest inhibitor. As was demonstrated in figure 6, these respondents on the whole believe they are doing a good job managing this process. Many small and medium-size companies also pointed to lack of ROI as a key inhibitor, which could make sense for those with low volumes and simple supply chains. FIGURE 19: Inhibitors to Adoption Current system meets our needs 9% 46% 6 20 We recently upgraded or replaced our system 7% 16% 24% Small Companies Medium Companies Section VII: Technology Organizational resistance to change We re in the process of upgrading or replacing our system None of these Available systems do not provide the functionality we require 5% 3% 7% 2% 7% 5% 5% 13% 12% Large Companies Lacks return on investment 2% 13% 22% total respondents

25 Large companies see strategic purpose for payment systems. Both visibility of data (85 percent) and costs (70 percent) rank as top drivers to technology adoption. Small and medium-size firms on the other hand use these tactically to automate accounting practices (85 percent) and save costs (85 percent). The scale and complexity of a company s supply chain will dictate the level and type of benefit it sees from a systems-based approach. FIGURE 20: Drivers to Adoption Visibility to data 77% 85% Small & Medium Companies Improve operational efficiency 77% 74% Large Companies 21 Visibility to costs 62% 7 Automate accounting practices Carrier performance/ compliance enforcement Cost savings Integration, with vendors and partners Integration, internal 31% 59% 46% 59% 56% 52% 54% 41% 85% 85% Section VII: Technology Bring systems in line with industry standards 3 38% Cash flow benefits 22% 38% Expand my offerings/increase operational scale/capacity 8% 15% Other, please specify 15% total respondents

26 More than 60 percent of those companies in the market for a new or upgraded system will look to an application-based approach (31 percent) or hybrid (31 percent). About 33 percent of respondents will outsource this function to a third-party provider. FIGURE 21: Future Delivery Model 6% 4% Application Based (includes TMS or ERP) 22 29% 31% A mix or hybrid of all of these Outsourced to another service provider None of these Outsourced to 3PL/Intermediary 31% Manual Section VII: Technology 55 total respondents

27 Section VIII: Payees Carriers servicing both U.S. domestic and international markets and 3PLs who qualified were asked a series of questions about their invoicing and collections process. The payee s process looks very similar to what was reported in The front end of the process is heavily automated and the dispute resolution segment causes a noticeable disruption. In 2011, payees show an increase in the amount of invoices presented and paid electronically. Dispute resolution has remained an issue, while auditing practices stayed the same. FIGURE 22: Payee Process % 75% 2% 8 6% 12% 82% 8% 57% 12% Outsourced 3 58% Electronic/ Automated Manual Section VIII: Payees 4 35% 2 22% 18% Invoice Generation Invoice Presentation/ Delivery Dispute Resolution Receipt of Payment Audit 103 total respondents

28 Nearly all invoices are generated within five days (a business week) of the completion of transportation services. More than 40 percent of invoices are generated within a day. This is clearly an area where technology is allowing LSPs to cut down their receivables cycle. Almost three-quarters of LSPs spend less than $20 per invoice. Electronic creation and presentation means will help limit these costs and streamline the process. FIGURE 23: Timeframe to Generate an Invoice % One day Two days Three days Section VIII: Payees 18% 22% FIGURE 24: Cost of Generating an Invoice Four days A week or more 103 total respondents 4% 4% 4% 4% Less than $10 $10 $20 $20 $30 24% 58% $30 $40 $40 $50 More than $ total respondents

29 Most LSPs report that it takes them several days to respond to disputes. This does not sound bad, but consider that this is one step of what is often a much larger process. Extra days here and there quickly add up. It is notable that 46 percent of payees have a workflow tool to manage disputes. This is nearly double the amount of payers. The telephone still dominates the dispute resolution process with 82 percent of respondents citing it as a means to respond to disputes. FIGURE 25: Timeframe to Respond to Disputes 13% 15% 25 Less than one day 51% 21% One day Two to five days A week or more 103 total respondents Section VIII: Payees FIGURE 26: Means to Respond to Disputes % 6 56% 44% 4 28% 26% 2 4% Phone Electronic message (i.e. EDI) Mail Fax Web-based portal with workflow tools N/A 103 total respondents

30 26 Section IX: Take AWAYS & Best Practices Section IX: Take Aways & Best Practices Freight payment remains a community-based exercise. A lack of universal, multimodal standards creates a large obstacle for payers and payees attempting to streamline the process. Companies are moving towards an electronic environment. The progress may be slow, late, and at times frustrating, but the good news is that it s happening. Number and complexity of transactions dictates the need for technology and the nature of its application tactical vs. strategic. Large companies, in particular, have much to gain from systemsbased approaches in terms of visibility to costs, dates and cash flow. Dispute resolution remains problematic for the majority of payers and payees, however workflow tools may offer an opportunity to streamline this process. On the surface, auditing is ubiquitous, yet most audits lack depth and completeness. Payers should be auditing every invoice, not just a sample. And every invoice should be reviewed for accuracy of both the obvious and mode-subtle details.

31 Appendix A: About Our Sponsors FREIGHTGATE Freightgate & PayCargo deliver the only International Automated e invoice Validation & Settlement solution. Freightgate is an industry leading, internet based SCM solution provider for global shippers, 3PL s, forwarders and carriers. Our solutions enable effective management of our customers worldwide supply chains, are low cost and easy to deploy on a global basis. Using our secure cloud based Software-as-a-Service (SaaS), we host our partners confidential supply chain data. The trust our customers have shown in Freightgate permits them to concentrate on their core business competency while our solutions increase the effectiveness of Transportation Procurement, Rate Management, Execution, Visibility and Settlement. To learn more, visit 27 INTTRA INTTRA is a leading global provider of e-commerce solutions to the ocean freight industry. INTTRA professionals work with over 30 leading carriers and their customers, to streamline and standardize their shipping processes worldwide through a network of more than 25,000 corporate locations. Over 400,000 container orders are initiated on the INTTRA platform each week, representing more than 12 percent of global ocean container trade. For further information, visit Appendix A: About Our Sponsors US BANK TRANSPORTATION SOLUTIONS U.S. Bank, a leader in corporate payments, is the world s leading freight payment provider. U.S. Bank offers comprehensive global invoice processing and payment via an integrated business-to-business payment network. Integrated supply chain finance allows carriers to get paid sooner, while shippers pay later. Robust pre-pay audits on 10 of invoices ensure accuracy. On-line, real-time, collaborative exception resolution further reduces cost and waste. The resulting data provides unmatched visibility to cost and performance to optimize your supply chain and manage your business. Improve cash flow, eliminate paper invoices and checks, and streamline your process today. For more information, visit:

32 Appendix B: About Our Partner RETAIL INDUSTRY LEADERS ASSOCIATION (RILA) RILA is the trade association of the world s largest and most innovative retail companies. RILA members include more than 200 retailers, product manufacturers, and service suppliers, which together account for more than $1.5 trillion in annual sales, millions of American jobs and operate more than 100,000 stores, manufacturing facilities and distribution centers domestically and abroad. For additional information visit 28 Appendix B: About Our Partner

33 Copyright 2011 by Howard Publications, Inc. All rights reserved. No part of the contents of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without the permission of the publisher.