As mid-market companies face rising costs, tighter margins, and pressure to “do more with less,” finance leaders are revisiting long-standing organizational structures.
One question is coming up more often than ever: Should we combine accounts receivable (AR) and accounts payable (AP) roles?
On paper, the logic is compelling. Both functions deal with invoices, payments, customers, vendors, and cash flow. Combining them appears to promise cost savings, headcount efficiency, and operational simplicity.
In practice, however, merging AR and AP roles can either be a smart optimization or a costly mistake.
So when does combining AR and AP roles make sense, when doesn’t it, what are the real risks involved, and how do automation platforms like DOKKA change the equation for mid-market finance teams?
Why Companies Consider Combining AR and AP Roles
The push to combine AR and AP usually starts with one of three challenges. While each one is understandable, they often mask deeper operational issues that need to be addressed first.
Challenge 1: Cost Pressure and Headcount Constraints
Mid-market companies often don’t have the luxury of highly specialized finance teams.
When budgets tighten or growth slows, leadership looks for ways to reduce headcount, avoid backfilling open roles, or delay new hires.
Combining AR and AP into a single “transactional finance” role can look like an immediate cost-saving measure. But in reality, the decision is often driven by short-term financial pressure rather than long-term operational strategy.
Challenge 2: Invoice Volume Growing Faster Than the Team
As companies scale, invoice volumes increase on both sides of the balance sheet, with more customers to bill and collect from and more suppliers to pay.
Finance teams suddenly find themselves processing two or three times the number of invoices with the same headcount.
Instead of adding dedicated AR or AP resources, management may view cross-training as the fastest solution. The idea is that flexibility will absorb growth, but without automation, the approach often spreads overload across fewer people.
Challenge 3: Perception That AR and AP Are “Similar Work”
From the outside, AR and AP can look nearly identical. Both involve handling invoices, managing payments, resolving discrepancies, and responding to emails from external parties.
The surface-level similarity leads many leaders to assume the roles are interchangeable.
What’s often missed is that AR and AP operate with different incentives, risks, and timing pressures, and treating them as the same function can introduce cash flow, control, and compliance issues that only appear later.
That assumption is where many finance teams get into trouble.
AR and AP: Similar on the Surface, Very Different in Reality
While AR and AP both touch invoices and payments, they serve opposite financial objectives.
- AP’s primary goal: Pay suppliers accurately, on time, and efficiently while protecting cash.
- AR’s primary goal: Collect cash as quickly as possible while maintaining customer relationships.
That tension matters.
On one hand, AP seeks to optimize cash outflows and prevent errors, which often means holding payments until due or carefully reviewing invoices for accuracy. On the other hand, AR focuses on accelerating inflows, keeping customer satisfaction high, and ensuring the business receives revenue promptly.
These opposing priorities can create natural conflicts if the same person or team is responsible for both, because the timing and decisions that help one side may inadvertently harm the other.
Key AP/AR Differences That Often Get Overlooked
Cash Flow Incentives Are Opposite
AP teams are trained to delay payments strategically, capture early-payment discounts, and prevent overpayments.
AR teams are trained to accelerate collections, resolve disputes quickly, and reduce days sales outstanding (DSO).
When one person owns both, priorities can conflict, especially during month-end or cash crunches.
Different Skill Sets and Mindsets
AP requires attention to detail, compliance, and vendor relationship management.
AR requires negotiation skills, persistence, and customer communication.
Not everyone excels at both roles.
Different Risk Profiles
AP mistakes lead to duplicate payments, fraud risk, and compliance issues.
AR mistakes lead to missed collections, revenue leakage, and customer dissatisfaction.
Combining the roles increases the blast radius of errors.
The Biggest Risks of Combining AR and AP Roles
Mid-market finance leaders usually understand the theory behind combining roles, but often underestimate the risk.
Here are the 4 most common risks of combining AR and AP roles:
- Loss of SoD
- Burnout and Bottlenecks
- Decline in Vendor and Customer Experience
- Hidden Cost of Errors
Risk 1: Loss of Segregation of Duties (SoD)
From an audit and control perspective, combining AR and AP is dangerous if not handled carefully.
When one person can:
- Create or update vendor records
- Process invoices
- Approve payments
- Apply cash
Real fraud and compliance risk is introduced. Auditors often flag combined roles unless strong system controls and automation are in place.
Risk 2: Burnout and Bottlenecks
AR and AP both spike at predictable times:
- Month-end close
- Quarter-end reporting
- Year-end audits
When one team or person owns both, workload peaks overlap. The result is:
- Slower processing
- Missed invoices
- Late payments
- Burnout
Instead of efficiency, instability follows.
Risk 3: Decline in Vendor and Customer Experience
Suppliers want timely payments and clear communication. Customers want fast dispute resolution and accurate statements.
When AR and AP roles are combined:
- Vendor inquiries are delayed because collections feel more urgent
- Customer disputes stall because AP deadlines take priority
Relationships on both sides are quietly damaged.
Risk 4: Hidden Cost of Errors
Many companies combine roles to save money, only to lose more through:
- Late payment fees
- Missed early-pay discounts
- Duplicate payments
- Slower collections
The savings from one less headcount can be wiped out by operational leakage.
When Combining AR and AP Can Make Sense
Despite the risks, combining AR and AP is not always a bad idea. It can work under the right conditions, like in these 3 scenarios:
Scenario 1: Low Invoice Volume, Low Complexity
If your company:
- Processes a few hundred invoices per month
- Has limited entities and currencies
- Has simple approval workflows
A combined role may be manageable, especially with strong system support.
Scenario 2: Strong Automation Is Already in Place
Strong automation is the key variable most companies miss. When AP and AR processes are largely automated, including invoice capture, matching, approvals, and posting, the human workload drops dramatically.
Platforms like DOKKA reduce AP manual effort by automating:
With automation absorbing the transactional work, combining oversight roles becomes far more realistic and far less risky.
Scenario 3: Clear Role Boundaries Still Exist
Successful teams that combine roles usually:
- Separate AR and AP responsibilities within the system
- Maintain approval controls
- Use automation to enforce segregation of duties
The role shifts toward exception management rather than manual processing.
The Automation Factor: Making Combined Roles Possible
Ten years ago, combining AR and AP roles was risky because everything was manual.
Today, automation changes the math.
AP Automation Reduces the Biggest Pain Point
AP is usually more manual and time-consuming than AR. Invoice capture, coding, and approvals consume hours every week.
Using an AP automation platform like DOKKA, mid-market teams can:
- Eliminate manual data entry
- Reduce invoice exceptions
- Shorten approval cycles
- Improve audit readiness
The result is more available time and lower cognitive load, which makes role consolidation more feasible.
Automation Restores Controls Even with Fewer People
Modern automation platforms enforce controls that were previously handled manually:
- Approval rules
- Audit trails
- Vendor validation
- Duplicate detection
Strong controls are critical when AR and AP responsibilities sit with fewer individuals.
DOKKA, for example, maintains clear visibility into who approved what, when, and why, even when the same team oversees both AR and AP.
A Smarter Alternative: Combine Oversight, Not Execution
One of the most effective models seen in mid-market finance teams follows a simple principle: Combine leadership and oversight, not day-to-day execution.
What this looks like in practice:
- One finance operations role oversees both AR and AP performance
- Day-to-day processing is automated as much as possible
- Exceptions are handled by specialists or escalated
- Controls and approvals remain separated in the system
The approach delivers cost efficiency without increasing operational risk.
Automation platforms like DOKKA make the model realistic by removing the need for constant manual AP intervention.
Why You Should Automate Your AP With DOKKA
DOKKA doesn’t just help with accounts payable. It fundamentally changes how mid-market finance teams approach capacity, structure, and scale.
Through automation of the most time-consuming and error-prone parts of AP, DOKKA removes the operational friction that usually makes role consolidation risky. Instead of relying on additional headcount to manage invoice volume, finance teams can rely on systems that perform the work consistently and correctly.
Instead of asking, “Can one person realistically do both AR and AP?”, finance leaders can ask a far more productive question: “How little manual work should humans be doing at all?”
Before merging roles, modernize the work.
Book a DOKKA demo to see how AP automation gives your team the flexibility to scale, consolidate roles safely, and regain control over finance operations without increasing risk or workload.
