Agricultural procurement and settlement management system
The employee calculates the settlement based on the quantity delivered, quality survey and agreed price. The amount, advances and service deductions can be explained to the supplier.
Weight, humidity, protein, fat, contamination, class, sample result, premiums, deductions and final price go through several systems. The member slowly gets a clear settlement, there is a quality dispute, and the cooperative has difficulty analyzing the real value of the lots.
How the solution works
- Aligning a Fulfilling Delivery
- Register supplier and actual quantity
- Link sample and final quality response
- Apply the contract formula and exceptions
- Provide explanation and check settlement
Key challenges
- Reception, laboratory quality and price formulas are not linked
- Delivery windows, transport and reception capacity are manually coordinated
- Members' settlements, advances and shared services are difficult to explain
Solution capabilities
Admission capacity
Time checks a specific receiving link: scales, sample, landing or further capacity. Reservation does not prove arrival.
Purpose of the sample
The result only applies to a proper delivery or an agreed period. One sample of milk and one shipment of grain do not necessarily have the same price application logic.
Price calculation
The formula, base price, quality corrections and units of measurement are saved at the price. If the result of the study is missing, the price is noted as preliminary.
Explaining the Settlement
Every price and netting basis is visible. Pajus, advance and production debt are shown according to different meaning.
Dispute and Correction
The original measurement is not rewritten to change the price. A reinvestigation or financial correction has a separate solution and history.
Business context
- Reception, laboratory quality and price formulas are not linked
- Weight, humidity, protein, fat, contamination, class, sample result, premiums, deductions and final price go through several systems. The member slowly gets a clear settlement, there is a quality dispute, and the cooperative has difficulty analyzing the real value of the lots.
- Delivery windows, transport and reception capacity are manually coordinated
- The farm harvest or milking schedule, vehicles, queues, scales, laboratory, drying, warehouses and buyer windows are planned differently. During the peak, queues are formed, production quality is deteriorating, and transportation and waiting costs increase.
- Members' settlements, advances and shared services are difficult to explain
- Buy-in accounts, prepayments, purchased raw materials, services, member's shares, fees and offsets are presented in several documents. The member is uncertain about the final financial situation, more service requests and less trust in the cooperative.
- The farm understands the settlement for its produce
- It is important for the supplier to see how the delivered quantity, quality survey and price formula have turned into a payable amount. Linked data allows for a specific examination of the issue or correction. A more transparent settlement helps to maintain supplier confidence and continuous supply of production.
Core features
- Admission capacity
- Purpose of the sample
- Price calculation
- Explaining the Settlement
- Dispute and Correction
Key integrations
- Sources of Admissions, Laboratories and Contract
- Genuine quantity, specific quality and formula applied.
- Accounting source
- Financial documents, advances and eligible offsets.
Potential impact (%)
The ranges indicate an illustrative relative change in the metric under the stated assumptions. Results depend on the starting position and actual use of the solution. Percentages for different metrics must not be added together.
Delay in the preparation of the price base
6–25%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 20-50% of waiting caused by missing information or unclear responsibility can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 30-50%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable share and the resulting change.
Measure the hours between receiving the last necessary fact and properly prepared calculation of the price.
Settlement explanation work
12–36%Decreasing
This illustrative scenario assumes that 30-60% of manual data entry and handover work can be addressed. That share is assumed to fall by 40-60%. Company data is needed to verify both the addressable workload and the resulting change.
Measure working minutes for a specific provider's billing question to answer.
Part of the negative feedback on the explanation of the buy-in amount
5–20%Decreasing
Indicative assumption: 20-40% of negative reviews are related to unclear calculation of the amount of buy-in of the output. The solution could reduce this share by 25-50%. This is a scenario of potential; the assumptions need to be verified by feedback collected by the company.
When a company starts collecting reviews, negative feedback about the explanation of the buy-in amount is calculated from all assessments received on the subject. The same method of assessment applies before and after installation and similar customer groups are compared. Without initial data, the actual change is not determined.
Conditional calculation scenarios. The assumptions have not been validated against client measurements.
When this solution is relevant
- The purchase price depends on quantity, quality and contractual premiums or deductions.
- The admissions and research data are manually rewritten, and the supplier has difficulty explaining the final settlement amount.
Project scope and implementation
Settlement rules are prepared according to specific buy-in agreements and quality data. For a fixed price, a simple calculation is used. More complex formulas are only included when the price is indeed changed by quality, bonuses or deductions.
Further expansion
- Other formulas after product units, sample application and correction checks.