Optimizing AP and AR for 2026: How to Build Finance Workflows That Actually Scale

In 2026, finance teams won’t struggle because they lack strategy. They’ll struggle because their workflows don’t hold up under pressure. 

As transaction volume rises, approval chains grow more complex, and audit scrutiny tightens, small inefficiencies become systemic bottlenecks. What “worked fine” at 2,000 invoices per month often breaks at 3,000. 

The real question isn’t whether your AP and AR processes function today. It’s whether they would scale cleanly tomorrow. 

The hidden cost of workflow fragility 

Workflow issues rarely show up as line items. They show up as side effects: 

• Late approvals that erode vendor trust and miss early-payment discounts 
• Invoice errors that trigger disputes and delay cash collection 
• Manual accruals that extend close and increase audit stress 
• Growing transaction volume that quietly increases headcount pressure 

The cost of doing nothing isn’t just inefficiency. It’s loss of control as scale increases. 

In our recent webinar, we pressure-tested where AP and AR processes typically break when transaction volume rises: approvals that live in inboxes, exception handling that depends on tribal knowledge, and visibility that arrives too late — often during close. 

If the same issues resurface every month, it’s rarely a “people” problem. It’s a workflow design problem. 

Below is a practical view of what typically fails first in AP and AR, what scalable teams do differently, and how to move into 2026 with speed and control. 

Why AP and AR “feel fine” until volume spikes 

Many finance teams can muscle through a typical month with spreadsheets and heroic effort. Scalability issues show up when complexity increases: more invoices, more suppliers, more entities, more exceptions, and more compliance pressure — often without more headcount. 

A few questions quickly reveal readiness: 

If the honest answer is “it depends,” you’ve found a risk point to fix before 2026 close pressure hits. 

Where AP breaks first (and how to fix it) 

1. Approvals become invisible and slow 

Approval chasing is one of the first cracks that widens as volume rises. When approvals happen in email, invoices stall quietly and the process becomes difficult to measure. Teams lose hours to “Who has it now?” follow-ups. 

Every day an invoice sits in approval limbo increases the risk of late payment, duplicate work, and reporting blind spots. 

What scalable teams do differently 

They standardize approvals inside a workflow system: 

If routing still depends on “who remembers to forward what,” that’s the first place to modernize. 

Quadient’s view on this is straightforward: workflow automation improves control and auditability by creating a clearer record of approvals and actions. 

2. Manual invoice processing extends cycle time 

Manual processing doesn’t just cost time. It creates handoffs, rework, and delays that compound at scale. 

Ask yourself: How many touches does an invoice require before it’s ready to pay? The more touches, the more delay and error risk — especially as transaction volume increases. 

3. Errors compound as volume grows 

Small error rates create real cost at scale: duplicate payments, incorrect coding, tax handling issues, and downstream exceptions. 

Invoice automation earns its value not by replacing people, but by reducing repetitive touchpoints and flagging issues earlier. Structured workflows with document-level audit trails help teams identify bottlenecks before they become systemic. 

4. Accruals and close rely on best guesses 

If accruals depend on spreadsheets and missing invoice context, close becomes fragile. 

The critical question: Are accruals a repeatable, auditable process — or a monthly scramble to rebuild the story? 

Scalable AP design creates documentation trails as work happens, so close becomes confirmation, not reconstruction. 

Where AR breaks (and why it hits forecasting fast) 

AR rarely fails because invoices aren’t sent. It fails when invoices go out late, go out inaccurately, or disputes lack structure — creating delays that weaken cash predictability. 

One commonly cited finding is that 61% of late payments are due to incorrect invoices, meaning internal accuracy issues can directly trigger payment delays.  

So the better question is: How much of your collections challenge actually begins upstream in workflow design? 

Disputes are the hidden scalability killer 

Disputes don’t scale when they live in inboxes and notes. Without structure, you lose: 

To scale AR in 2026, disputes need: 

Even modest improvements here can tighten forecasting and reduce cash flow surprises. 

Use a scorecard to find constraints (not assumptions) 

You don’t need a perfect process. You need clarity on where pressure builds first. 

If you want a quick benchmark to spark internal discussion, use the Workflow Readiness Scorecard and look for patterns in your results. 

As you go through it, ask: 

Those answers become your 2026 optimization roadmap. 

What “optimized for 2026” looks like in practice 

Finance leaders optimizing AP and AR typically want three outcomes: speed, control, and visibility — without adding headcount. 

You’ll know you’re on the right track when you can say: 

In AP 

In AR 

How Quadient helps teams scale AP and AR with confidence 

Optimizing workflows isn’t just about digitizing tasks. It’s about building a system that holds up under volume spikes, turnover, and close pressure.