Collections Performance Baseline
- Current DSO and payment behaviour
- Overdue receivables and ageing
- Customer segments and payment timing
- Existing collection processes and historical activities
- Data quality and limitations
Founding Design Partner Program
Find out what your collections decisions are worth — and help shape BIX.
We are inviting up to three organisations to take part in an expert-led Decision Opportunity Assessment of their Accounts Receivable and Collections. There is no assessment fee and no obligation to buy future BIX software.
- Places
- Up to 3
- Assessment fee
- None
- Purchase obligation
- None
- Analysis (estimate)
- 2–3 weeks
- Overall (estimate)
- 4–7 weeks
- Your team's time
- About 6–10 hours
Who it is for
Organisations with substantial B2B receivables
- An established collection process, manual or automated
- Roughly €50M or more in annual credit sales — a starting guide, not a strict rule
- 12–24 months of invoice and payment history that can be exported
- A finance or AR leader willing to engage with the findings
Why we are inviting founding partners
To build the method — and the software — on real problems
BIX is pre-launch. Before we automate anything, we want to validate the assessment method with real organisations and develop the future software around genuine operational decisions. Founding partners get the assessment without a fee; we get honest feedback and real-world learning.
What you receive
Four deliverables, one management report.
Every finding is labelled as an observed fact, a hypothesis, a scenario assumption or a validated outcome — so you always know what is proven and what is not.
Decision Opportunity Map
- Reminder timing
- Customer segmentation and collection prioritisation
- Escalation strategies and treatment of exceptions
- Collector workload
- Payment behaviour and customer experience
Financial Opportunity Scenarios
- DSO, working capital and financing cost
- Operational effort, where measurable
- Bad debt and disputes, where the data supports it
- Low / central / high ranges with stated assumptions
BIX Opportunity Report
- Executive summary and baseline
- Decision opportunities with evidence strength
- Financial scenario ranges and data limitations
- Prioritised hypotheses and validation experiments
- Proposed next steps
Sample Opportunity Report
What the report looks like.
The full structure of the management report, filled with invented data for a fictional company.
Fictional sample Invented company and invented data — shows the report format only. Not a result, benchmark or expected outcome.
Opportunity Report
Sample · Confidential format
Northbridge Components (fictional)
Decision Opportunity Assessment · Accounts Receivable & Collections
- Annual credit sales
- €180M
- Reported DSO
- 58 days
- Financing cost
- 6%
- History analysed
- 24 months
1Executive summary
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.
Scenario
Combined DSO opportunity
1.2–5.0 days
Central 3.0 · overlap discounted
Scenario
Working capital, one-time
€0.6–2.5M
Central €1.48M
Scenario
Financing benefit a year
€36–148k
At 6%, before costs
Hypotheses
Evidence grades
ABBC
4 hypotheses ranked
Validated outcome
Proven so far
None yet
Requires the pilot
2Baseline performance
Observed fact Where the 58 days of DSO come from:
37 agreed terms
17 paid late
4
Agreed terms (weighted)Paid after due dateLate on disputed invoices
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
- Late payment concentrates in mid-size accounts (€50k–€500k a year).
- First contact happens on average 10 days after the due date.
- Reminders continued during 71% of open disputes.
- Computed DSO reconciles within 0.5 days of finance's figure.
3Decision opportunity map
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 pilotOpportunityHypothesis to testNo effect foundData gapConstraint / guardrail
4Prioritised hypotheses and financial ranges
HypothesisGradeDSO effect, days (low · central · high)Working capitalFinancing / yr
H1 First contact for mid-size accounts at due date +1 instead of +10Evidence: a 2025 rule change in one region
A
0.8 · 1.5 · 2.5
€395k–€1,233k
€24k–€74k
H2 Pause reminders and route disputes to resolution before reminder level 2Evidence: matched comparison of disputed vs undisputed invoices
B
0.5 · 1.2 · 2.0
€247k–€986k
€15k–€59k
H3 Rank collector calls by value and payment history instead of invoice ageEvidence: adjusted comparison; short action log
B
0.3 · 1.0 · 2.0
€148k–€986k
€9k–€59k
H4 Review terms for 40 chronically late customersEvidence: descriptive pattern only; commercial decision
C
Not quantified
—
—
Scale 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.
5Uncertainty and data limitations
- Correlation is not causation. H2 and H3 rest on adjusted comparisons; unobserved differences between accounts may bias them.
- Short history. The action log starts in March 2025, which limits H3 and prevents any finding on escalation.
- Data quality. 6% of payments could not be linked to an invoice and were excluded.
- Trade-offs. H1 adds an estimated 0.4 collector FTE of contact volume; H2 needs a dispute owner.
6Recommended validation experiment
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
The assessment process
From first call to report in an estimated 4–7 weeks.
These are planning estimates, not guaranteed delivery times. The analysis itself takes about 2–3 weeks once suitable data is available. Legal arrangements and data extraction usually take longer than the analysis.
- Week 0
Introduction and agreements
20-minute introductory conversation, fit and data check, confidentiality and data arrangements, data request.
- Week 1 of analysis
Data and baseline
Validate and link the exports, reconcile DSO to your reported figure, show where days accumulate. Go/no-go on data sufficiency.
- Week 2
Decisions and hypotheses
Interview your AR lead, compare documented rules with what the data shows, list candidate hypotheses.
- Week 3
Scenarios, report and readout
Quantify ranges, grade the evidence, design the pilot, and discuss the findings with your CFO and AR lead.
How results are validated
Graded evidence. Then a controlled pilot.
Collection actions are not random — collectors call the accounts they already expect to pay late. Simple before-and-after comparisons can therefore mislead. We grade every finding and prove nothing without a pilot.
| Grade | Basis | How it is presented |
|---|---|---|
| A | Natural experiment or earlier controlled change | Quantified range; strong pilot candidate |
| B | Adjusted comparison of similar invoices | Quantified range with wider uncertainty; pilot required |
| C | Descriptive pattern only | Not quantified; listed as a hypothesis to test |
- 01
Ranges, not single numbers
Low, central and high estimates from resampling and sensitivity tests. Separate opportunities are never simply added together.
- 02
A pilot with rules agreed upfront
Randomised by customer where acceptable, otherwise a staggered roll-out. Primary metric, guardrails and decision rule are fixed before the start.
- 03
You stay in control
The pilot is run by your team in your existing systems. BIX designs and measures; your teams decide.
What we need from you
Exports, not integrations — and a few hours of your time.
No ERP integration is required. The assessment scope depends on the completeness and quality of the data available; the week-1 review tells you honestly what it can support.
Historical data, preferably 12–24 months
| Invoices and payments | Invoice and payment history, due dates and payment dates |
| Customers | Pseudonymised customer identifiers and segmentation |
| Collection activity | Reminders, calls and escalations, where available |
| Process rules | Current reminder and escalation rules, and when they changed |
| Operational costs | Collector time or cost, where available |
Exchanged as CSV/XLSX exports by a protected method agreed with your IT team in advance. Contact names, emails and phone numbers are not needed.
Your team's time: about 6–10 hours
- Introductory conversation20 min
- Kick-off and process walkthrough~1–2 h
- Data extraction (IT or data team)~2–4 h
- Questions during the analysis~1–2 h
- Readout with CFO and AR lead60–90 min
- Structured feedback on the method~30 min
Confidentiality and data handling
Agreed with you before any data moves.
These are the principles we commit to. The specific arrangements are agreed in writing with each partner before any sensitive data is transferred.
Draft wording — legal review required before launch
- 01
You own your data
Your organisation retains ownership of all information it shares. It is used only for your assessment and the purposes agreed with you.
- 02
Arrangements agreed first
Who has access, confidentiality terms, permitted use, retention period and deletion are agreed in writing before any sensitive data is transferred.
- 03
Nothing through the website
The public application form asks for contact details only. Please do not send financial data, customer names or invoice details through it.
- 04
Minimum necessary data
We ask only for what the analysis needs. Customer identifiers can be pseudonymised; personal contact details are not required.
- 05
No publication without permission
Using your company name, logo, results or a case study requires separate written permission. Removing names does not by itself make commercial data safe to publish, so anonymised findings are not published without your agreement either.
- 06
No certifications claimed
BIX does not currently hold security certifications. We will answer your security and procurement questions openly during the introductory conversation.
Founding Design Partner Program
Stop guessing what better could look like.
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
- 1We review your applicationWe aim to reply within [X working days — to confirm].
- 220-minute introductory conversationArranged by email. We discuss your collections process and whether the program fits.
- 3Fit and data checkWhich historical data is available, and in what quality.
- 4Confidentiality agreed firstAccess, permitted use, retention and deletion are agreed before any data is shared.
- 5Assessment and Opportunity ReportAn estimated 2–3 weeks of analysis once data is available; 4–7 weeks overall. Planning estimates, not guaranteed times.
Placeholder
[Founder name][Role] · You'll speak with this person
Questions
Frequently asked
Is it really free?
Yes. Founding design partners pay no assessment fee and have no obligation to purchase future BIX software. In return we ask for your time, your data under agreed terms, and honest feedback on the method.
Is this automated AI software?
No. The assessment is carried out by the BIX team, supported by analytical tools. Continuous decision optimisation software is our long-term goal and is not available today.
What if our data is incomplete?
The scope adapts to what is available. The week-1 data review states clearly what the data can and cannot support, and either side can decide not to continue.
Will you guarantee a DSO improvement?
No. The report gives ranges with stated assumptions and evidence grades. Only a controlled pilot can show whether a change actually works for your organisation.
Do we need to integrate anything?
No. The initial assessment works with CSV/XLSX exports; no ERP integration or software installation is needed.
Why only three partners?
Each assessment involves substantial expert work. Limiting the program lets us give every partner proper attention and learn from each assessment.