Before Automation
60 days DSO
Manual decisions, inconsistent execution. Measured in your own records.
Automation executes your collection process. It doesn't tell you whether that process is optimal. BIX investigates which Accounts Receivable and Collections decisions could work better — and what that is worth. We start with a free, expert-led assessment for founding design partners.
Better decisions. More value.
No assessment fee. No purchase obligation. Ranges, not promises.
Automation made collections faster and more consistent. But the rules it executes — when to remind, whom to call, when to escalate — were set once and rarely tested. The real question is what a better strategy would deliver.
60 days DSO
Manual decisions, inconsistent execution. Measured in your own records.
52 days DSO
Configured rules, executed faster. Your baseline — but the strategy itself is untested.
45? days DSO
What a better strategy might deliver. Unknown until it is tested against your data — that is what BIX is designed to do.
An expert-led assessment of your collections decisions, supported by our analytical tools. Up to three organisations; no assessment fee and no obligation to buy future BIX software.
DSO, payment behaviour, ageing, customer segments and how your current process actually runs — including what the data can and cannot support.
Where reminder timing, segmentation, prioritisation, escalation, exceptions and collector workload may be holding back cash.
Transparent ranges for DSO, working capital, financing cost and — where data allows — effort, bad debt and disputes.
A management report with graded evidence, prioritised hypotheses and a proposed controlled pilot to validate them.
An excerpt of the management report, using an invented company. Every finding states whether it is an observed fact, a hypothesis, a scenario assumption or a validated outcome.
Decision Opportunity Assessment · Accounts Receivable & Collections
Three testable decision changes could reduce DSO by 1.2–5.0 days (central 3.0). None is proven. We recommend a 12-week controlled pilot of H1 and H2.
Combined DSO opportunity
1.2–5.0 days
Central 3.0 · overlap discounted
Working capital, one-time
€0.6–2.5M
Central €1.48M
Financing benefit a year
€36–148k
At 6%, before costs
Evidence grades
ABBC
4 hypotheses ranked
Proven so far
None yet
Requires the pilot
Observed fact Where the 58 days of DSO come from:
Ageing of open receivables
| Not yet due | 64% |
| 1–30 days overdue | 22% |
| 31–60 days overdue | 8% |
| 61–90 days overdue | 3% |
| Over 90 days | 3% |
Observations
Reminder timing
H1 · Grade ADispute handling
H2 · Grade BCollection prioritisation
H3 · Grade BPayment terms
H4 · Grade C · to testReminder channel
No measurable differenceEscalation strategy
Insufficient dataCollector workload
Constraint: +0.4 FTE for H1Customer experience
Guardrail in pilotScale 0–3 days. Euros use the simulator formulas: €180M ÷ 365 = €493,151 per DSO day; financing benefit = working capital × 6%. Ranges overlap and are not additive.
Test
H1 + H2 together
Design
~1,400 mid-size accounts, randomised 50/50 by customer
Duration
12 weeks (about two payment cycles)
Primary metric
Days past due at payment
Guardrails
Dispute rate, complaints, collector hours
Decision rule
Adopt if central effect ≥ 1 day and the 90% interval excludes zero
Enter your baseline, choose an improvement to explore, and see the financial consequence. The arithmetic is exact; the improvement is your assumption.
You assumed a 7-day reduction — from 52 to 45 days, 13% of your current DSO.
The simulator cannot tell you whether this is realistic. Answering that requires your operational data and the investigation below.
Rebuild DSO from invoice and payment history, by segment, to establish the true starting point.
Find where days accumulate — before first contact, in disputes, in particular customer groups.
Model different timing, prioritisation and escalation rules against historical payment behaviour to estimate a realistic range.
Introduce a controlled change and measure actual results against a comparison group before scaling.
Past collection decisions were not random. A credible analysis accounts for selection bias and uncertainty before claiming cause and effect.
Faster cash can cost collector time or customer goodwill. A better strategy shows what it gains and what it gives up.
Start from hypotheses and validate them with suitable analysis and, where feasible, controlled tests.
Each hypothesis receives an evidence grade (A, B or C). The intended outcome is a range of achievable improvement, with stated assumptions — not a single promised number.
Founding design partners receive an expert-led assessment of the decisions behind these numbers, with no assessment fee. Your figures can be attached to your application below.
BIX complements your AR software, BI team and advisers rather than replacing them. Each can do valuable analysis; BIX is built specifically around independent, decision-focused investigation, transparent evidence and controlled experiments.
| AR software analytics | Internal BI teams | Consulting assessments | BIX | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Typical focus | Running and monitoring the collection process; risk scores and worklists | Reliable reporting across the business | Broad working-capital or process improvement | Whether specific collection decisions should change |
| Typical evidence | Predictive models and dashboards | Descriptive analysis; deeper studies when capacity allows | Interviews, benchmarks and expert judgement, often with data analysis | Every finding graded A/B/C; causal claims only where the data supports them |
| Testing impact | Depends on the vendor and the set-up | Possible when designed in | Varies by engagement | A controlled pilot with metrics and a decision rule agreed upfront |
| Relationship to execution | Part of the execution system | Part of your organisation | External; may include implementation | Independent of the system that executes the decisions |
| Consider when | You need to run collections efficiently | You need trusted reporting | You need a broad transformation programme | You want to know which collection rules are worth changing — and prove it |
Delivered by the BIX team using analytical tools and your CSV/XLSX exports. No integration, no software to install. The scope depends on the completeness and quality of your data.
An independent layer above your ERP and collections tools that keeps testing decisions: understand, simulate, recommend, measure, repeat. Built with design partners — not available today.
Procurement, accounts payable and operational planning are areas we are exploring. Collections comes first because its outcomes are frequent and measurable.
Customers retain ownership of their information. Access, permitted use, retention and deletion are agreed before any sensitive data is transferred.
Company names, logos, results or case studies are only used with separate written permission.
The application form asks for contact details only. Assessment data is exchanged later, by an agreed protected method.
Help shape BIX and get an expert-led assessment of your collections decisions — with no assessment fee and no obligation to buy.
What happens after you apply