Deutsch
Français
TürkçeSupplier invoices
Prepare references, suppliers and totals while payment approval stays with the business.
From a document to data someone can approve.
Endurion Ledger proposes extracted values from invoices, inspection records and job documents. Required fields and inconsistencies are checked before an approved record reaches your target system.
Ledger is configured for your documents and systems. It is not an off-the-shelf application ready to use on this website.
Clean intake
Controlled review
Traceable outcome
Explore the concept
Current challenge
Reading is only the first step.
Recognising a number is not enough: it must belong to the correct supplier, job and period. Ledger combines extraction with business rules and a visible exception path. Approval stays separate from reading the document.
Endurion Ledger / PROCESS
How it works
Swipe the diagram sideways. Full step descriptions follow below.
Capture and classify
Defined inboxes or repositories accept approved file formats with recorded origins.
Extract and suggest
OCR or suitable AI models propose document type, dates, references and line items.
Validate and approve
Missing fields, duplicates and inconsistencies appear in a traceable review screen.
Controlled delivery
Approved records can move through an API or documented export into the target system.
The result is a checked record linked to its source document. A separate approval determines whether it triggers a posting or another action.
Where it can help
Maintenance reports
Capture equipment IDs, dates and checks; highlight missing required entries.
Order documents
Transfer customer details and line items without triggering unreviewed commitments.
REAL-WORLD SCENARIO / EXAMPLE
What changes in everyday operations.
Illustrative scenario, not a customer reference or measured result.
A maintenance business receives inspection records and invoices from different suppliers. Details must match equipment, jobs and purchase orders. Ledger prepares the values and exposes missing or conflicting information for review.
Discuss your own workflowBefore. After. And what changes in between.
Open the document, retype references and amounts, find the order, resolve discrepancies by email and file the document.
Propose the document type and values, apply agreed checks, route exceptions to the responsible person and transfer only approved data.
More details
Supplier invoices, delivery notes, maintenance records, inspection reports and recurring forms with identifiable required fields.
Practical focus
- Recurring steps with clear triggers and known inputs.
- Useful when rules, required fields and exceptions can be described.
- Especially strong where there is volume, routine and multiple teams.
Typical question
Which scans are suitable?
Readable, representative samples are tested in the pilot. Faint text, handwriting and irregular tables increase review needs; OCR is not error-free.
More details
Outlook/Exchange and SharePoint can supply documents. OCR or a suitable AI model supports extraction; ERP, document management or ticketing receives approved data through checked interfaces or exports.
Practical focus
- Source systems, target systems and owners are named up front.
- Interfaces, permissions, storage locations and logs are part of the architecture review.
- Existing tools are retained where possible instead of being replaced without reason.
Typical question
Does Ledger initiate payments?
Document processing alone does not approve payment. Posting or payment integration needs separate permissions, checks and explicit agreement.
More details
Poor scans, handwriting and unusual tables can cause recognition errors. Unresolved values are not silently accepted. Payment approval and binding postings require a separately agreed process.
Practical focus
- Unclear content, exceptions and sensitive decisions remain visible for review.
- Data quality, scan quality and licensing influence the level of achievable automation.
- Automation does not replace governance, approvals or business accountability.
Typical question
Must the ERP be replaced?
Existing APIs, import formats and controlled exports are checked first. Replacing the ERP is not a prerequisite; a reliable handoff is.
More details
We agree document types, field definitions, data quality and target systems with business owners. The pilot measures recognition errors, exceptions and remaining review time to determine which processing can safely proceed.
Practical focus
- Assessment, rule set, ownership model and a focused pilot are prepared in a structured way.
- Success criteria, exceptions, handoffs and documentation are not improvised afterwards.
- The aim is a reliable entry point, not a nice demo without an operating model.
Typical question
How are sensitive documents handled?
Data scope, access, processing location and deletion are agreed beforehand. Unneeded details stay out of the workflow; production samples require approval.
VALUE MODEL
How much time could this workflow free up?
Change the assumptions. This models potential released capacity, not guaranteed savings or a quote.
How is this estimate calculated?
Monthly volume × (current minutes − projected minutes) ÷ 60 = hours. Multiply by assumed hourly labor cost for illustrative time value. Implementation, licensing, review and operating costs are not deducted.
Potential capacity released / month–hours
Illustrative time value (not cash savings)–
Illustrative assumptions. Productivity does not equal payroll savings.
The important questions before deciding.
Use these answers to define technical prerequisites, remaining review work and the first project scope.
Which scans are suitable?
Readable, representative samples are tested in the pilot. Faint text, handwriting and irregular tables increase review needs; OCR is not error-free.
Does Ledger initiate payments?
Document processing alone does not approve payment. Posting or payment integration needs separate permissions, checks and explicit agreement.
Must the ERP be replaced?
Existing APIs, import formats and controlled exports are checked first. Replacing the ERP is not a prerequisite; a reliable handoff is.
How are sensitive documents handled?
Data scope, access, processing location and deletion are agreed beforehand. Unneeded details stay out of the workflow; production samples require approval.
GOVERNANCE AND OPERATIONS
Reading permission is not posting permission.
Document access, processing, retention and target permissions are defined separately. The pilot measures extraction errors, unresolved cases and remaining review time, rather than just the number of processed PDFs.
More about implementationCommon questions
Will it understand every document?
No. Poor scans, handwriting and inconsistent layouts limit extraction. We test with approved real-world examples.
Which systems can connect?
This depends on available interfaces and permissions. Microsoft 365, SharePoint, DMS, ERP and APIs are candidates, not confirmed integrations.
Explore more automation options
Validate documents, retain exceptions.
Connect source and field
Review each amount alongside its source location. Check agreed required fields and totals before handoff. An illegible document belongs in manual review even if a model is confident about individual values.
Explain corrections
Corrected values need a link to the original and an identifiable reviewer. Agree retention, access and deletion periods with the responsible team. Technical extraction does not replace business or tax approval.
Next step
Let’s test your documents with a limited sample set.
Let us review your systems, input data and the smallest useful pilot. Final scope and integrations are agreed after discovery.