Collections & Dunning is where ERP discipline either begins or breaks.
Run Automated Dunning / Collections Workflow looks operational from far away. In a real finance team, it is a chain of assertions: the right actor started the work, the required records existed, the control policy was applied, the state change was preserved, and the outcome can be explained later without rebuilding the transaction from emails and spreadsheets.
The expected business outcome is specific: Overdue invoices are systematically followed up; DSO decreases; collections staff effort focuses on high-value exceptions.
The control flow a finance team actually needs.
Step 1
Dunning Levels And Day Thresholds Be...
Step 2
Email Templates Variable Substitution
Step 3
A Customer Can Be Excluded From Dunning
Step 4
Dunning History Be Auditable
Step 5
Promise-To-Pay Set A Follow-Up Date
The ERP surface involved.
Module
Collections & Dunning
Actors
Collections Engine, AR Clerk, Customer, Email System
Tier
Tier 1
Finance area
Accounts Receivable & Order-to-Cash
Region lens
US and UK finance teams
Publication date
March 19, 2026
Dunning levels and day thresholds must be configurable per customer segment; email templates must support variable substitution (invoice number, amount, due date, payment link); a customer can be excluded from dunning (VIP hold); dunning history must be auditable; promise-to-pay must set a follow-up date; dispute must route to dispute management workflow; system must not send dunning emails to customers with active payment plans; non-functional: nightly run for 10,000 overdue invoices < 10 minutes.
US and UK teams have different compliance hooks, but the same control problem.
US teams usually care about clean evidence for audit support, vendor records, payment controls, tax reporting, and management review. UK teams usually care about VAT-ready records, approval evidence, digital-record discipline, and traceable postings. The country-specific details differ, but the operating pattern is the same: the ERP needs controlled records, explicit ownership, defensible state changes, and evidence that survives beyond the person who completed the task.
The control matrix.
| Control area | Requirement | Acceptance proof |
|---|---|---|
| Control 1 | Dunning levels and day thresholds must be configurable per customer segment | Given open overdue invoices with dunning levels configured by days-overdue threshold |
| Control 2 | email templates must support variable substitution (invoice number, amount, due date, payment link | when the nightly collections engine runs |
| Control 3 | a customer can be excluded from dunning (VIP hold | then each overdue invoice transitions to the appropriate dunning level, a template email is sent, a collections case is created or escalated, and invoices on dispute hold or with payment plans are excluded from dunning |
| Control 4 | dunning history must be auditable | negative) when a customer has VIP hold flag set then no dunning email is sent and status remains unchanged. |
| Control 5 | promise-to-pay must set a follow-up date | Overdue invoices are systematically followed up; DSO decreases; collections staff effort focuses on high-value exceptions. |
| Control 6 | dispute must route to dispute management workflow | Overdue invoices are systematically followed up; DSO decreases; collections staff effort focuses on high-value exceptions. |
Audit evidence is a chain, not a folder.
| Evidence layer | What should be preserved |
|---|---|
| Business event | |
| Control rules | Dunning levels and day thresholds must be configurable per customer segment; email templates must support variable substitution (invoice number, amount, due date, payment link); a customer can be excluded from dunning (VIP hold); dunning history must be auditable; promise-to-pay must set a follow-up date; dispute must route to dispute management workflow; system must not send dunning emails to customers with active payment plans; non-functional: nightly run for 10,000 overdue invoices < 10 minutes. |
| Acceptance proof | Given open overdue invoices with dunning levels configured by days-overdue threshold; when the nightly collections engine runs; then each overdue invoice transitions to the appropriate dunning level, a template email is sent, a collections case is created or escalated, and invoices on dispute hold or with payment plans are excluded from dunning; (negative) when a customer has VIP hold flag set then no dunning email is sent and status remains unchanged. |
| Data record | |
| System event | |
| Lifecycle state | |
The useful version of this workflow is not only fast. It is inspectable. A controller, auditor, or operator should be able to move from source event to system record to state transition to final business outcome without guessing.
Implementation contracts.
Reference data model
`dunning_policy` { id: string, customer_segment: string, levels: [{level: int, days_overdue: int, template_id: string}] }; `collections_case` { id: string, invoice_id: invoice_*, customer_id: cust_*, dunning_level: int, opened_at: timestamp, status: enum, promise_to_pay_date: date }; `dunning_event` { case_id: string, level: int, sent_at: timestamp, delivery_status: enum }; (reference, product may differ).API and events
`POST /v1/dunning/run` { entity_id, as_of_date } -> 202 { run_id, invoices_processed: int }; `GET /v1/collections-cases?customer_id=&status=`; `POST /v1/collections-cases/{id}/promise-to-pay` { pay_date } -> 200; emits `ar.dunning.sent` per level transition; idempotent re-run produces no duplicate emails.State transitions
`OPEN -> LEVEL_1 -> LEVEL_2 -> LEVEL_3 -> ESCALATED`; terminal `CLOSED`; guard: dispute hold and payment plan hold pause all level transitions; VIP hold blocks entry to dunning.Common implementation traps.
Treating the workflow as data entry
If the ERP only stores the final record, the team loses the decision trail that explains how the record became valid.
Hiding exception logic
Exceptions need owners, reason codes, and time stamps. A vague pending state is not a control.
Posting without recovery design
Retries, duplicate submissions, and partial failures must be explicit so the system does not create inconsistent records.
Skipping evidence design
A workflow that cannot produce evidence on demand will eventually push finance teams back into manual screenshots and spreadsheets.
Where Rivane fits.
Rivane is built for finance workflows where automation must stay tied to source documents, approvals, state transitions, ledger impact, reporting, and audit evidence. Use this guide as a checklist for evaluating whether an ERP workflow is merely digitized or actually controlled.
References and source basis.
These sources provide the standards, regulatory, or government context around the flow. They are included so the guide is useful to finance operators, auditors, and implementation teams, not only buyers reading software copy.