Consolidating participant billing from course lists and subsidies
A non-profit educational institution produces around 7,200 participant invoices a month, and scattered course lists cause manual rework.
- Education
- Accounting
Key metric
Processing time per invoice
52min
Average processing time per invoice
At a glance
Starting point
A non-profit educational institution with around 450 employees offers about 3,600 courses a year. Its administration produces around 7,200 participant invoices a month, covering course fees, reductions and public subsidies. Data on attendance, discounts and funding rates comes from the course management system, spreadsheets and emails. For each invoice, a clerk spends an average of five minutes checking course lists, attendance and funding conditions before entering amounts in the finance system. Eight employees thus spend almost half their working time on recurring checks and manual corrections.
- 7,200
- Invoices per month
- 8
- Administration staff
The challenge
Participant billing is central for the institution, as it has to bring course fees, discounts and subsidies together correctly. In practice, however, course lists, attendance records and funding commitments come in different formats. The administration transfers amounts manually into the finance system, checks free-text notes on special cases and compares them with policies. Questions to course instructors and controlling are frequent, because justifications for reductions are missing or unclear. As a result, deadlines for consolidated invoices to funders regularly get tight, which makes liquidity planning harder.
Typical symptoms in the company
Why this remained unsolved
The administration had seen the problem for years but prioritized it behind course planning and funding applications. Previous digitalization projects focused on introducing the course management software and moving to a new finance system. The billing steps in between were considered too fragmented and too dependent on free-text notes to automate with classic rules. A full ERP project would have been too expensive for the organization, while the manual work, though burdensome, still seemed just about manageable.
Our solution
The institution introduced an agentic workflow that pulls participant billing together from the course management system, spreadsheets and emails and prepares it for the administration. The workflow reads course lists and attendance, assigns them to the correct fees, discounts and subsidies and generates a structured billing proposal per participant. Generative AI summarizes free-text justifications for reductions, checks them against stored policies and flags unclear cases. Clerks receive a sorted task list of checked proposals, can adjust amounts and then pass the invoices to the finance system in one batch.
Where generative AI comes in
Generative AI interprets free-text notes from course lists and emails, assigns them to the matching billing items and drafts justified proposals for discounts and subsidies. It compares content with stored policies, flags deviations and summarizes special cases clearly, which significantly shortens manual review.
- Connection to the course management system, spreadsheet storage and email inbox to collect all billing-relevant information automatically
- Generative analysis of course lists, attendance and free-text justifications to prepare billing items and special cases in structured form
- Agentic workflow that prioritizes billing proposals, flags unclear cases and prepares batch approvals for the finance system
Rollout in clear steps
Process mapping
Joint analysis of the existing participant billing, data sources and special cases, and definition of the target state for each billing step.
Integration & rules
Connecting the course management system, spreadsheets and email inbox, and defining review rules, policies and interfaces to the finance system.
AI training & pilot
Configuring the generative analysis, testing with selected courses and fine-tuning the proposals based on clerks’ feedback.
Rollout & handover
Gradual rollout to all courses, training the administration teams and handing monitoring and adjustments over to internal IT.
Measured: after 4 months in production
Period: after 4 months in production.
| Metric | Value | Basis |
|---|---|---|
| Processing time per invoiceKey metric | Processing time per invoice cut by 60% (5 to 2 minutes) | Time tracking before/aftermeasured |
| Invoiced cases per full-time employee | Increase from 900 to 1,500 cases | Projectionestimated |
| Manual corrections after sendingQuality measure | Down from 6 to 3% of invoices | System measurementmeasured |
Cost-effectiveness
The solution depends on the quality of the course lists and attendance data. If attendance is recorded late or inconsistently, the workflow can only provide limited support and manual rework in the administration remains necessary.
Integration and operations
Also fits
A similar case in your organization? Let’s talk.
Briefly describe your process. We’ll get back to you with an initial assessment of whether the pattern can be transferred, and what it realistically takes.