Staff Benchmarking Survey PDF

C R E D IT T O D A Y
2010 Credit, Collection & AR

Staff Benchmarking Survey
$295
TOMORROW’S TOOLS FOR TODAY’S CREDIT PROFESSIONALS
No part of this report may be reproduced

without written permission of the publisher.
PO Box 720, Roanoke, VA 24004-0720 (540) 343-7500
www.CreditToday.net www.CreditJobsToday.com
Table of Contents
Introduction _________________________________________________________________ vi
Introduction _________________________________________________________________ vi
A Shrinking Profession _______________________________________________________ vii
Credit Department Staff Sizes (FTEs) Based on Business Type, Number of Active Accounts
and Annual Revenue __________________________________________________________ 1
Total Credit Department Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts ________________________ 1
Total Credit Department Staff Size by Annual Revenue _________________________________ 2
Management/Supervisory Staff by Number of Active Accounts ___________________________ 3
Management/Supervisory Staff by Annual Revenue _____________________________________ 4
Staff Handling Credit Risk Analysis by Number of Active Accounts _______________________ 5
Staff Handling Credit Risk Analysis by Annual Revenue_________________________________ 6
Staff Handling Billing/Invoicing by Number of Active Accounts ___________________________ 7
Staff Handling Billing/Invoicing by Annual Revenue ____________________________________ 8
Collections Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts ____________________________________ 9
Collections Staff Size by Annual Revenue ____________________________________________ 10
Collections Staff Size by Business Type and AR Balance ________________________________ 11
Cash Application Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts______________________________ 13
Cash Application Staff Size by Annual Revenue _______________________________________ 14
Deductions Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts ___________________________________ 15
Deductions Staff Size by Annual Revenue ____________________________________________ 16
Average Staff Sizes by Number of Active Accounts ____________________________________ 17
Average Staff Sizes by Annual Revenue ______________________________________________ 17
Average Staff Sizes by Type of Business ______________________________________________ 18
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month ______________________________ 19
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Consumer Products ______________ 19
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Industrial Products ______________ 19
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Wholesale/Distributors ___________ 20
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Construction ____________________ 20
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Services ________________________ 20
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Media __________________________ 21
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Other __________________________ 21
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – All categories ___________________ 21
Staff Size by A/R Balance & Invoice Volume – Selected Positions – A ___________________ 23
Staff Size by A/R Balances & Invoice Volume - Selected Positions – B ___________________ 24
Staffing Adequacy by Industry _____________________________________________________ 25
Staffing Shortfall by Industry and A/R Balances_______________________________________ 26
Impact of Staffing Shortfall on DSO _________________________________________________ 27
Average DSO by Industry Type ____________________________________________________ 28
Average DSO by Annual Revenue___________________________________________________ 29
Average DSO by Total A/R Balance _________________________________________________ 30
Average DSO by Number of Active Accounts _________________________________________ 31
Average DSO by Number of Invoices Per Month ______________________________________ 32
Efficiency Strategies __________________________________________________________ 33
Credit Risk Analysis Software by Industry ___________________________________________ 35
Credit Risk Analysis Software by A/R Portfolio Size ___________________________________ 35
Collection Software by Industry ____________________________________________________ 36
Collection Software by A/R Portfolio Size ____________________________________________ 36
Deduction Software by Industry ____________________________________________________ 37
Deduction Software by A/R Portfolio Size ____________________________________________ 37
Customer Self-Service/EIPP Portal by Industry _______________________________________ 38
Customer Self-Service/EIPP Portal by A/R Portfolio Size _______________________________ 38
Automated Remittance Processing (Auto-Cash) by Industry _____________________________ 39
Automated Remittance Processing (Auto-Cash) by A/R Portfolio Size _____________________ 39
Imaging/Content Management Solutions by Industry __________________________________ 40
Imaging/Content Management Solutions by A/R Portfolio Size __________________________ 40
Credit Services and Outsourcing Data & Trends ___________________________________ 42
Outsourcing of Credit Applications _________________________________________________ 43
Outsourcing of the Reference Checking Process _______________________________________ 43
Outsourcing of the Order Approval Process __________________________________________ 44
Outsourcing of Credit Analysis/Scoring ______________________________________________ 44
Outsourcing of Portfolio Analysis/Credit Scoring ______________________________________ 45
Outsourcing of Collections (1st Party) ________________________________________________ 45
Outsourcing of Dunning Activities __________________________________________________ 46
Outsourcing of Deduction Handling _________________________________________________ 46
Outsourcing of UCC/Lien Management ______________________________________________ 47
Outsourcing of Lockbox/Check Deposit ______________________________________________ 47
Outsourcing of Remittance Processing _______________________________________________ 48
Survey Demographics_________________________________________________________ 49
Business Types___________________________________________________________________ 49
Essay Questions _____________________________________________________________ 52
Question: What steps are you taking to compensate for your staffing shortage? ____________ 52
Staffing / Hours ________________________________________________________________ 52
Productivity Initiatives __________________________________________________________ 53
Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 2

Question: From a staff perspective, what do you see as the predominant challenge over the
course of the next 12 months? How do you intend to address this challenge? _______________ 53
Credit/Collections/Deductions ____________________________________________________ 53
Staffing / Training _____________________________________________________________ 56
Automation / Software __________________________________________________________ 57

page left blank on purpose

Thanks to Our Sponsors
One of the most important aspects of a survey such as this is ensuring a robust
response so we have meaningful data to “drill down” in various parts of the
survey. We are thankful for the following organizations that helped generate a
fantastic response to our survey:
A.G. Adjustments
NACM Kansas City
NACM Oregon
NACM South Texas
National Group Management Corp.
Riemer Reporting Service

Introduction
In these challenging economic times, staffing levels are absolutely critical throughout the
corporate hierarchy. When it comes to credit and collections, however, staffing levels can have a
disproportionate impact on corporate performance. After all, cash is king.
• Not enough staff and collections lag

• Not enough staff and AR portfolio risk increases, impacting future cash flow
• Not enough staff and unresolved deductions increase, thereby increasing profit dilution
• In addition, all of these outcomes can also result from a credit department organizational
structure that does not take full advantage of the staff it has
Staffing levels are affected by a variety of factors unique to every commercial enterprise. No two
businesses are exactly the same, but they often share commonalities, and so it is worthwhile to
benchmark against your peers in order to get better idea where you stand on staffing and
comparative performance. Some of the factors affecting staffing are:
• Total revenue
• Invoice volumes and amounts
• Number and type of customers
• Industry characteristics
• The prevalence of automation tools
• The use of external credit services and outsourcing
This benchmarking survey takes a comprehensive look at all these factors. It also is preceded by
the Credit Today 2005 Credit, Collection & A/R Staff Benchmarking Survey. As a result, we are
able to not only provide a fine-grained snapshot of how contemporary credit and collection
functions are staffed, but also identify some of the trends affecting staffing.
As such, this survey is intended for Credit Managers, Controllers and CFO’s who need to:
• Reorganize their credit function to be more effective
• Justify additional staff
• Reevaluate staffing levels and make-up within the context of mergers, acquisitions and
other fundamental changes to the greater enterprise
• Justify the use of automation tools or external service providers in the face of staffing
shortages
• Control labor costs without sacrificing performance

A Shrinking Profession
It is our observation that whenever this country has encountered a severe economic downturn,
credit department staffs have been reduced, and when good times return, not all those lost
positions are recovered. This was the case in the early 1980s when downsizing was the buzzword
and also appears to be happening in our current economic climate.
Comparing this current survey with its 2005 predecessor, we can document the recent slippage.
The following graph reveals the losses in manufacturing and wholesale. All the other industries
we monitored also showed losses, but their sample sizes were not large enough for us to
document their losses with certainty. In particular, Construction appears to have lost the highest
percentage of jobs, which jives with anecdotal reports from that industry.
On a related note, we have all seen the charts showing the loss of manufacturing jobs in the
USA, but the corollary to that is that, as a percentage of GDP, manufacturing output has
remained stable. We suspect that the same is true for the credit profession. Doing more with less
is not just idiomatic, but is an integral component of our times. If it makes you feel any better,
your counterparts who manage the procure-to-pay (accounts payable) process are facing the
same scenario.

In terms of the primary credit department positions, only deductions showed an increase. The
greatest loss was felt among collectors, who saw their numbers drop a whopping 37 percent. It is
no wonder that credit professionals are continuing to put in long hours to make up the slack.
It is our sincere hope that you will be able to use the data tables in this report to pinpoint where
you stand with your peers, and with that knowledge be better able to chart a course that will
enable you and your staff to do the best job possible given the circumstances. Effective credit
management is very much about information and using it effectively. We believe the data in this
report will assist you in clearly defining your current status relative to your peers, and with that
clarity of vision you will be able to gain valuable insights that will help you and your staff
perform at optimal levels.

Credit Department Staff Sizes (FTEs) Based on Business Type,
Number of Active Accounts and Annual Revenue
The following tables measure staff size in FTEs (full time employee equivalents) broken down by “line of
business.” The tables are presented for total credit department staff size as well as six major accounts
receivable functions: Management/Supervisory, Credit Risk Analysis, Billing/Invoicing, Collections,
Cash Applications, and Deductions. Separate tables show these figures differentiated by number of active
accounts and annual revenue.
Total Credit Department Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts
Total Staff
# of
Active Line of Business Average Median Minimum Maximum Responses
Accts
Less Mfging - Consumer Goods 9.2 5.3 1.0 66 50
than Mfging - Industrial Prods 3.5 2.9 .3 16 36
1,000 Wholesale/Distribitor 2.2 2.0 .3 6 33
Construction 3.7 3.0 2.0 6 3
Services 3.7 2.3 .7 10 6
Media 2.7 3.0 1.0 4 3
Finance 7.0 7.0 3.1 11 2
Other 6.4 3.0 1.2 27 14
Total 5.5 3.0 .3 66 148
1,000 to Mfging - Consumer Goods 11.1 7.4 1.0 76 59
4,999 Mfging - Industrial Prods 7.8 5.4 1.2 57 30
Wholesale/Distribitor 4.8 4.0 .3 17 42
Services 18.7 16.0 6.0 34 3
Media 20.3 18.0 1.0 42 3
Other 8.1 5.0 2.0 23 7
Total 8.7 5.4 .3 76 152
5,000 to Mfging - Consumer Goods 19.7 13.0 5.4 80 20
24,999 Mfging - Industrial Prods 11.7 7.0 1.0 40 5
Wholesale/Distribitor 20.9 19.8 4.0 40 4
Construction 12.5 14.5 5.0 16 4
Services 14.1 5.2 1.0 45 4
Other 21.1 18.3 11.0 37 6
Total 17.8 12.4 1.0 80 44
25,000 Mfging - Consumer Goods 41.1 41.1 41.1 41 1
& up Wholesale/Distribitor 87.5 27.0 3.5 345 5
Services 56.0 56.0 18.0 94 2
Other 33.3 15.0 13.0 72 3
Total 62.8 27.0 3.5 345 11
Total Mfging - Consumer Goods 11.9 8.0 1.0 80 130
Mfging - Industrial Prods 5.9 3.3 .3 57 71
Services 16.4 6.0 .7 94 15
Media 11.9 4.0 1.0 42 7
Finance 7.0 7.0 3.1 11 2
Other 12.4 6.6 1.2 72 30
Total 10.2 5.0 .3 345 355
Total Credit Department Staff Size by Annual Revenue
Total Staff
Annual
revenue Line of Business Average Median Minimum Maximum Responses
Less than Mfging - Consumer Goods 4.1 3.0 1.0 12 36
$100 Mfging - Industrial Prods 3.1 1.8 .3 15 24
million Wholesale/Distribitor 3.1 2.0 .3 17 55
Services 6.0 4.0 .7 16 6
Media 2.3 2.0 1.0 4 4
Finance 7.0 7.0 3.1 11 2
Other 1.5 1.4 1.2 2 3
Total 3.5 2.1 .3 17 134
$100 Mfging - Consumer Goods 7.1 5.8 1.0 18 28
million to Mfging - Industrial Prods 4.4 3.3 .5 11 31
$499 Wholesale/Distribitor 5.6 4.0 .3 27 19
million
Services 4.7 5.2 2.5 6 4
Other 8.3 3.5 2.0 37 12
Total 6.1 4.3 .3 37 99
$500 Mfging - Consumer Goods 14.1 13.0 2.0 41 41
million to Mfging - Industrial Prods 7.0 7.3 2.0 16 10
< $2 Wholesale/Distribitor 16.8 13.7 2.0 38 8
Billion
Construction 12.0 15.5 1.0 19 6
Services 17.7 18.0 1.0 34 3
Media 16.0 16.0 14.0 18 2
Other 12.4 12.0 4.0 27 10
Total 13.3 12.6 1.0 41 80
$2 Billion Mfging - Consumer Goods 27.2 20.3 1.5 80 22
& up Mfging - Industrial Prods 23.1 14.5 6.0 57 6
Wholesale/Distribitor 192.5 192.5 40.0 345 2
Services 69.5 69.5 45.0 94 2
Other 28.9 25.5 5.0 72 5
Total 37.3 22.0 1.5 345 39
Total Mfging - Consumer Goods 12.0 8.0 1.0 80 127
Mfging - Industrial Prods 5.9 3.3 .3 57 71
Services 16.4 6.0 .7 94 15
Media 11.9 4.0 1.0 42 7
Finance 7.0 7.0 3.1 11 2
Other 12.4 6.6 1.2 72 30
Total 10.2 5.0 .3 345 352

Management/Supervisory Staff by Number of Active Accounts
FTEs - Management/Supervision
# of Active Accts Line of Business Average Median Max Min Responses
Less than 1,000 Mfging - Consumer Goods 1.6 1.0 7.0 .2 47
Mfging - Industrial Prods 1.0 1.0 10.0 .1 34
Wholesale/Distribitor .5 .5 1.0 .1 27
Construction .5 .3 1.0 .3 3
Services .4 .3 1.0 .1 5
Media .7 1.0 1.0 .2 3
Finance 1.1 1.1 2.0 .3 2
Other 1.1 .5 5.0 .1 14
Total 1.1 1.0 10.0 .1 136
1,000 to 4,999 Mfging - Consumer Goods 1.8 1.0 9.0 .2 57
Wholesale/Distribitor .8 1.0 2.0 .1 39
Construction 1.0 1.0 3.0 .2 8
Services 1.3 1.0 2.0 1.0 3
Media 4.2 5.0 7.5 .1 3
Other 1.2 1.0 2.0 .5 6
Total 1.4 1.0 9.0 .1 145
Mfging - Industrial Prods 1.2 1.0 2.0 1.0 5
Wholesale/Distribitor 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 4
Construction 3.3 3.0 5.0 2.0 4
Services 1.9 .5 5.0 .3 3
Other 3.0 2.5 5.0 2.0 6
Total 3.0 2.0 18.0 .3 43
25,000 & up Wholesale/Distribitor 9.5 3.0 35.0 1.0 5
Services 9.0 9.0 15.0 3.0 2
Other 3.0 1.0 7.0 1.0 3
Total 7.4 3.0 35.0 1.0 11
Total Mfging - Consumer Goods 2.0 1.0 18.0 .2 125
Wholesale/Distribitor 1.4 1.0 35.0 .1 75
Services 2.3 1.0 15.0 .1 13
Media 2.4 1.0 7.5 .1 7
Finance 1.1 1.1 2.0 .3 2
Other 1.7 1.0 7.0 .1 29
Total 1.7 1.0 35.0 .1 335

Management/Supervisory Staff by Annual Revenue
FTEs - Management/Supervision
Annual revenue Line of Business Average Median Max Min Responses
Less than $100 Mfging - Consumer Goods .9 .5 5.0 .2 32
million Mfging - Industrial Prods 1.3 1.0 10.0 .1 22
Services .4 .3 1.0 .1 6
Media .6 .6 1.0 .1 4
Finance 1.1 1.1 2.0 .3 2
Other .3 .3 .5 .1 3
Total .8 .5 10.0 .1 120
$100 million to Mfging - Consumer Goods 1.2 1.0 3.0 .2 27
$499 million Mfging - Industrial Prods 1.0 1.0 3.5 .2 30
Services .8 1.0 1.0 .3 3
Other 1.1 .5 4.0 .2 11
Total 1.0 1.0 4.0 .2 94
< $2 Billion Mfging - Industrial Prods 1.1 1.0 2.0 .3 10
Services 2.5 2.5 3.0 2.0 2
Media 3.5 3.5 5.0 2.0 2
Other 1.8 1.4 5.0 1.0 10
Total 2.1 1.5 10.0 .2 79
$2 Billion & up Mfging - Consumer Goods 4.5 3.0 18.0 .5 22
Services 10.0 10.0 15.0 5.0 2
Other 3.6 3.0 7.0 1.0 5
Total 5.1 3.0 35.0 .5 39
Services 2.3 1.0 15.0 .1 13
Media 2.4 1.0 7.5 .1 7
Finance 1.1 1.1 2.0 .3 2
Other 1.7 1.0 7.0 .1 29
Total 1.7 1.0 35.0 .1 332

Staff Handling Credit Risk Analysis by Number of Active Accounts
FTEs - Credit Risk Analysis
Less than 1,000 Mfging - Consumer Goods .9 .5 5.0 .1 45
Mfging - Industrial Prods .7 .5 3.0 .1 26
Energy .5 .5 .5 .5 1
Services 1.5 .4 5.0 .1 4
Media .1 .1 .1 .1 1
Finance 3.8 3.8 7.0 .5 2
Other 1.0 .5 4.0 .1 11
Total .8 .5 7.0 .1 121
Wholesale/Distribitor 1.1 .7 4.1 .1 31
Services 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2
Media 1.6 1.8 3.0 .2 3
Other 1.3 .5 3.0 .5 5
Total 1.2 1.0 6.0 .1 125
Services 17.0 17.0 17.0 17.0 1
Media 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 1
Other 3.3 2.5 10.0 1.0 6
Total 3.5 2.0 20.0 .4 36
25,000 & up Mfging - Consumer Goods 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 1
Services 10.5 10.5 19.0 2.0 2
Other 2.8 2.0 6.0 .5 3
Total 4.6 2.0 19.0 .3 10
Mfging - Industrial Prods 1.1 .8 9.0 .1 55
Energy .5 .5 .5 .5 1
Services 5.3 2.0 19.0 .1 9
Media 1.8 1.8 4.0 .1 5
Finance 3.8 3.8 7.0 .5 2
Other 1.8 1.0 10.0 .1 25
Total 1.5 1.0 20.0 .1 292

Staff Handling Credit Risk Analysis by Annual Revenue
FTEs - Credit Risk Analysis
Less than Mfging - Consumer Goods .6 .4 2.0 .1 31
$100 million Mfging - Industrial Prods .6 .4 2.0 .1 17
Services 1.8 1.1 5.0 .1 4
Media .1 .1 .2 .1 2
Finance 3.8 3.8 7.0 .5 2
Other .2 .2 .3 .1 2
Total .7 .4 7.0 .1 106
$100 million to Mfging - Consumer Goods .9 .6 3.0 .2 24
Other 1.7 .5 10.0 .2 10
Total 1.1 .5 10.0 .1 79
Services 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2
Media 2.9 2.9 4.0 1.8 2
Other 1.3 1.5 2.0 .3 8
Total 1.8 1.0 10.3 .1 66
Services 18.0 18.0 19.0 17.0 2
Other 3.6 3.0 6.0 2.0 5
Total 4.0 3.0 20.0 .3 38
Services 5.3 2.0 19.0 .1 9
Media 1.8 1.8 4.0 .1 5
Finance 3.8 3.8 7.0 .5 2
Other 1.8 1.0 10.0 .1 25
Total 1.5 1.0 20.0 .1 289

Staff Handling Billing/Invoicing by Number of Active Accounts
FTEs - Billing/Invoicing
Less than Mfging - Consumer Goods 1.2 .5 7.0 .1 35
1,000 Mfging - Industrial Prods .7 .5 3.0 .1 23
Construction .8 1.0 1.0 .5 3
Services 1.2 .8 3.1 .2 6
Media 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Finance .4 .4 .5 .3 2
Other 2.0 .4 11.0 .1 10
Total 1.0 .5 11.0 .1 105
Mfging - Industrial Prods .8 1.0 2.0 .0 16
Services 5.5 5.5 10.0 1.0 2
Media 5.5 1.3 15.0 .2 3
Other 2.3 1.0 8.0 .5 6
Total 1.5 1.0 15.0 .0 94
Services 1.9 1.9 2.0 1.8 2
Other 5.3 3.5 12.0 .5 6
Total 2.6 1.5 12.0 .2 26
25,000 & up Wholesale/Distribitor 5.1 2.0 13.0 .3 3
Other 5.0 7.0 7.0 1.0 3
Total 6.3 4.5 20.0 .1 8
Services 3.8 1.8 20.0 .2 11
Media 3.7 1.0 15.0 .2 5
Finance .4 .4 .5 .3 2
Other 3.2 1.0 12.0 .1 25
Total 1.6 1.0 20.0 .0 233

Staff Handling Billing/Invoicing by Annual Revenue
FTEs - Billing/Invoicing
million Mfging - Industrial Prods .6 .5 2.0 .1 15
Services 1.3 .8 3.1 .2 5
Media .7 1.0 1.0 .2 3
Finance .4 .4 .5 .3 2
Other .6 .5 1.0 .3 3
Total .7 .5 6.0 .1 97
$100 million to Mfging - Consumer Goods .6 .5 2.0 .2 16
Services 1.4 1.4 2.0 .8 4
Other 2.8 1.0 12.0 .1 10
Total 1.5 .8 13.0 .0 61
Other 3.4 2.0 11.0 .3 8
Total 2.4 1.1 13.0 .1 48
$2 Billion & up Mfging - Consumer Goods 1.3 .5 6.0 .1 15
Total 3.6 1.0 20.0 .1 25
Services 3.8 1.8 20.0 .2 11
Media 3.7 1.0 15.0 .2 5
Finance .4 .4 .5 .3 2
Other 3.2 1.0 12.0 .1 25
Total 1.6 1.0 20.0 .0 231

Collections Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts
FTEs - Collections
# of active accts Line of Business Average Median Maximum Minimum Responses

Services .7 .5 2.0 .2 6
Media .8 .8 1.0 .5 2
Finance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Other 1.6 1.3 6.0 .1 13
Total 1.3 .8 11.5 .1 130
Services 8.0 9.0 12.0 3.0 3
Media 5.2 3.5 12.0 .2 3
Other 3.2 2.4 6.0 .5 6
Total 3.0 2.0 30.0 .2 134
5,000 to 24,999 Mfging - Consumer Goods 7.0 3.3 18.0 1.6 20
Services 5.2 1.5 17.0 .8 4
Other 6.0 7.0 8.0 3.0 5
Total 6.7 5.0 20.0 .8 39
25,000 & up Wholesale/Distribitor 40.8 12.0 154.0 .8 5
Services 23.5 23.5 34.0 13.0 2
Other 19.7 6.0 52.0 1.0 3
Total 30.4 13.0 154.0 .8 11
Construction 3.2 1.0 10.0 .3 13
Services 6.4 2.0 34.0 .2 15
Media 4.2 2.3 12.0 .2 6
Finance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Other 4.8 2.0 52.0 .1 27
Total 3.7 1.5 154.0 .1 314

Collections Staff Size by Annual Revenue
FTEs - Collections
Less than Mfging - Consumer Goods 1.1 .8 5.0 .2 35
$100 million Mfging - Industrial Products .8 .5 4.0 .2 17
Services 2.1 .5 9.0 .2 6
Media .6 .5 1.0 .2 3
Finance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Other .3 .3 .6 .1 3
Total 1.0 .7 9.0 .1 117
$499 million Mfging - Industrial Products 1.4 1.0 3.0 .3 25
Construction 4.8 4.0 10.0 1.0 4
Services 1.6 1.4 3.0 .8 4
Other 2.5 1.5 7.0 .5 11
Total 2.1 1.5 10.0 .3 83
< $2 Billion Mfging - Industrial Products 2.4 2.5 3.5 1.0 7
Services 8.6 12.0 13.0 .9 3
Media 5.8 5.8 8.0 3.5 2
Other 3.5 2.9 6.0 1.0 10
Total 4.7 3.0 28.0 .5 75
Mfging - Industrial Products 8.8 5.5 30.0 1.0 6
Energy 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1
Services 25.5 25.5 34.0 17.0 2
Media 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 1
Other 22.3 8.0 52.0 7.0 3
Total 13.8 6.0 154.0 .8 36
Mfging - Industrial Products 2.1 1.0 30.0 .2 55
Construction 3.2 1.0 10.0 .3 13
Energy 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 1
Services 6.4 2.0 34.0 .2 15
Media 4.2 2.3 12.0 .2 6
Finance 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 2
Other 4.8 2.0 52.0 .1 27
Total 3.7 1.5 154.0 .1 311

Collections Staff Size by Business Type and AR Balance
Another way to benchmark the need for collection resources is to look at what peers are doing in
a similar-sized receivable environment. The following table benchmarks resources used in the
collection process based on both line of business and AR size.
FTEs - Collections
Line of Business Total A/R balance Average Responses
Mfging - Less than $10 million 1.5 34
Consumer $10 to $49 million 1.8 32
Goods $50 to $199 million 4.9 42
$200 Million & up 8.0 16
Total 3.6 124
Mfging - Less than $10 million .6 14
Industrial Prods $10 to $49 million 1.5 25
$50 to $199 million 1.7 11
$200 Million & up 10.4 5
Total 2.1 55
Wholesale/ Less than $10 million 1.0 41
Distribitor $10 to $49 million 2.6 18
$50 to $199 million 7.0 8
$200 Million & up 52.2 3
Total 4.3 70
Construction Less than $10 million .7 4
$10 to $49 million 2.8 3
$50 to $199 million 6.5 4
$200 Million & up 2.3 2
Total 3.2 13
Services Less than $10 million 1.9 8
$10 to $49 million 1.9 2
$50 to $199 million 19.7 3
$200 Million & up 17.0 1
Total 6.8 14
Media Less than $10 million .6 3
$50 to $199 million 3.5 1
$200 Million & up 12.0 1
Total 3.4 5
Other Less than $10 million 2.8 5
$10 to $49 million 2.2 12
$50 to $199 million 3.6 3
$200 Million & up 12.8 6
Total 4.9 26
Total Less than $10 million 1.2 111
$10 to $49 million 2.0 92
$50 to $199 million 5.2 72
$200 Million & up 12.9 35
Total 3.7 310

Page left blank on purpose

Cash Application Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts
FTEs - Cash Application
Active Accts Line of Business Average Median Max Min Responses
Less than Mfging - Consumer Goods 1.1 1.0 8.0 .1 46
1,000 Mfging - Industrial Products .6 .5 3.0 .1 30
Services .4 .3 1.0 .1 6
Media .8 1.0 1.0 .3 3
Finance .5 .5 .5 .5 2
Other .6 .3 2.0 .1 12
Total .7 .5 8.0 .1 132
1,000 to Mfging - Consumer Goods 1.9 1.0 11.0 .2 54
4,999 Mfging - Industrial Products 1.6 1.0 13.0 .2 27
Services 2.3 3.0 3.0 1.0 3
Media 2.3 2.0 4.8 .2 3
Other 1.1 1.0 2.3 .5 7
Total 1.5 1.0 13.0 .1 134
5,000 to Mfging - Consumer Goods 2.6 1.7 6.0 .6 18
24,999 Mfging - Industrial Products 5.0 5.0 9.0 1.0 2
Services 2.8 1.3 6.0 1.0 3
Other 2.2 2.0 3.0 1.0 6
Total 2.6 2.0 9.0 .6 34
25,000 & up Wholesale/Distribitor 15.6 3.0 69.0 1.0 5
Other 3.5 3.5 4.0 3.0 2
Total 10.3 3.0 69.0 1.0 9
Mfging - Industrial Products 1.2 .8 13.0 .1 59
Services 1.8 1.0 6.0 .1 13
Media 1.5 1.0 4.8 .2 6
Finance .5 .5 .5 .5 2
Other 1.3 1.0 4.0 .1 27
Total 1.6 1.0 69.0 .1 309

Cash Application Staff Size by Annual Revenue
FTEs - Cash Application
million Mfging - Industrial Products .5 .3 2.0 .1 19
Services .8 .3 3.0 .1 6
Media .6 .6 1.0 .2 4
Finance .5 .5 .5 .5 2
Other .2 .1 .4 .1 3
Total .6 .4 3.0 .1 120
$499 million Mfging - Industrial Products .9 .8 3.5 .2 27
Services .9 1.0 1.0 .5 4
Other .8 .5 2.0 .2 11
Total 1.0 1.0 5.0 .1 88
$500 million to < Mfging - Consumer Goods 2.0 1.5 6.0 .3 35
$2 Billion Mfging - Industrial Products 1.2 1.0 3.0 .1 7
Other 1.8 2.0 4.0 .3 10
Total 2.0 1.9 6.0 .1 64
Mfging - Industrial Products 4.8 2.3 13.0 1.0 6
Services 6.0 6.0 6.0 6.0 2
Other 2.7 3.0 3.0 2.0 3
Total 5.5 3.0 69.0 .3 35
Mfging - Industrial Products 1.2 .8 13.0 .1 59
Services 1.8 1.0 6.0 .1 13
Media 1.5 1.0 4.8 .2 6
Finance .5 .5 .5 .5 2
Other 1.3 1.0 4.0 .1 27
Total 1.6 1.0 69.0 .1 307

Deductions Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts
FTEs - Deduction Handling
# of active accts Line of Business Average Median Max Min Responses
Services .3 .3 .7 .1 3
Finance .3 .3 .5 .1 2
Other 1.6 .4 5.0 .1 10
Total 1.9 .5 40.0 .1 108
Construction 1.1 .6 3.0 .2 4
Services 3.0 3.0 5.0 1.0 2
Media 1.5 1.8 2.5 .2 3
Other .8 .3 2.0 .1 3
Total 2.1 1.0 32.0 .1 106
Services .3 .3 .5 .1 3
Other 3.5 3.5 6.0 1.0 4
Total 4.1 3.0 20.0 .1 27
25,000 & up Mfging - Consumer Goods 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 1
Other .8 .8 1.0 .5 2
Total 14.1 1.5 75.0 .5 6
Services 1.0 .4 5.0 .1 8
Media 1.5 1.8 2.5 .2 3
Finance .3 .3 .5 .1 2
Other 1.8 .6 6.0 .1 19
Total 2.5 .8 75.0 .1 247

Deductions Staff Size by Annual Revenue
FTEs - Deduction Handling
million Mfging - Industrial Prods .3 .1 1.0 .1 14
Services .5 .3 1.0 .1 5
Media .2 .2 .2 .2 1
Finance .3 .3 .5 .1 2
Other .1 .1 .1 .1 2
Total .4 .3 3.0 .1 91
Services .5 .5 .5 .5 1
Other .8 .6 2.0 .1 8
Total 1.1 .8 6.0 .1 67
Services 2.6 2.6 5.0 .1 2
Media 1.8 1.8 1.8 1.8 1
Other 2.3 1.0 5.0 .3 7
Total 3.0 2.5 12.0 .1 60
Media 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 1
Other 5.5 5.5 6.0 5.0 2
Total 12.0 7.0 75.0 .3 27
Services 1.0 .4 5.0 .1 8
Media 1.5 1.8 2.5 .2 3
Finance .3 .3 .5 .1 2
Other 1.8 .6 6.0 .1 19
Total 2.5 .8 75.0 .1 245

Average Staff Sizes by Number of Active Accounts
The following tables summarize the data presented above in “thumbnail” formats. Clearly, the
greater the number of active accounts being managed, the greater will be your staffing needs.
The following chart shows the average staff size, in FTEs, of businesses based on the number of
active accounts being managed in credit:
Mean
FTEs - FTEs - FTEs -
Management FTEs - Credit Billing/ FTEs - FTEs - Cash Deduction
# of Active Accts /Supervision Risk Analysis Invoicing Collections Application Handling
Less than 1,000 1.1 .8 1.0 1.2 .7 1.9
1,000 to 4,999 1.4 1.2 1.5 2.9 1.5 2.0
5,000 to 24,999 3.0 3.5 2.6 6.7 2.6 4.1
25,000 & up 7.4 4.6 6.3 30.4 10.3 14.1
Overall Average 1.7 1.4 1.6 3.7 1.5 2.5
Average Staff Sizes by Annual Revenue
FTEs - FTEs - FTEs - FTEs -

Annual Management FTEs - Credit Billing/ FTEs - Cash Deduction
revenue /Supervision Risk Analysis Invoicing Collections Application Handling
Less than Average .8 .7 .7 1.0 .6 .4
$100 Median .5 .4 .5 .7 .4 .3
million Maximum 10.0 7.0 6.0 9.0 3.0 3.0
Minimum .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
Responses 123 109 99 120 123 94
$100 Average 1.0 1.1 1.5 2.1 1.0 1.1
million to Median 1.0 .5 .8 1.5 1.0 .8
$499 Maximum 4.0 10.0 13.0 10.0 5.0 6.0
million
Minimum .2 .1 .0 .3 .1 .1
Responses 94 79 61 83 88 67
$500 Average 2.1 1.8 2.4 4.7 2.0 3.0
million to < Median 1.5 1.0 1.1 3.0 1.9 2.5
$2 Billion Maximum 10.0 10.3 13.0 28.0 6.0 12.0
Minimum .2 .1 .1 .5 .1 .1
Responses 79 66 48 75 64 60
$2 Billion & Average 5.1 4.0 3.6 13.8 5.5 12.0
up Median 3.0 3.0 1.0 6.0 3.0 7.0
Maximum 35.0 20.0 20.0 154.0 69.0 75.0
Minimum .5 .3 .1 .8 .3 .3
Responses 39 38 25 36 35 27
Total Average 1.7 1.5 1.6 3.6 1.5 2.5
Median 1.0 .9 1.0 1.5 1.0 .8
Maximum 35.0 20.0 20.0 154.0 69.0 75.0
Minimum .1 .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
Responses 335 292 233 314 310 248

Average Staff Sizes by Type of Business
FTEs - FTEs - FTEs - FTEs - FTEs -

Line of Management/ Credit Risk Billing/ FTEs - Cash Deduction
Business Supervision Analysis Invoicing Collections Application Handling
Mfging - Average 2.0 1.4 1.2 3.5 1.7 3.7
Consumer Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 1.6
Goods Maximum 18.0 20.0 13.0 25.0 11.0 40.0
Minimum .2 .1 .1 .2 .1 .1
Responses 125 114 87 125 119 104
Mfging - Average 1.2 1.1 1.0 2.1 1.2 1.0
Industrial Median 1.0 .8 .6 1.0 .8 .5
Prods Maximum 10.0 9.0 9.0 30.0 13.0 6.0
Minimum .1 .1 .0 .2 .1 .1
Responses 68 55 41 55 59 47
Wholesale/ Average 1.4 1.2 1.2 4.3 1.8 2.2
Distribitor Median 1.0 .5 .5 .8 .5 .3
Maximum 35.0 12.0 13.0 154.0 69.0 75.0
Minimum .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
Responses 75 67 53 70 72 55
Construction Average 1.5 1.4 1.7 3.2 1.3 1.7
Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maximum 5.0 4.0 8.0 10.0 3.0 5.0
Minimum .2 .1 .2 .3 .3 .2
Responses 15 14 8 13 10 9
Services Average 2.3 5.3 3.8 6.4 1.8 1.0
Median 1.0 2.0 1.8 2.0 1.0 .4
Maximum 15.0 19.0 20.0 34.0 6.0 5.0
Minimum .1 .1 .2 .2 .1 .1
Responses 13 9 11 15 13 8
Media Average 2.4 1.8 3.7 4.2 1.5 1.5
Median 1.0 1.8 1.0 2.3 1.0 1.8
Maximum 7.5 4.0 15.0 12.0 4.8 2.5
Minimum .1 .1 .2 .2 .2 .2
Responses 7 5 5 6 6 3
Other Average 1.7 1.8 3.2 4.8 1.3 1.8
Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 .6
Maximum 7.0 10.0 12.0 52.0 4.0 6.0
Minimum .1 .1 .1 .1 .1 .1
Responses 29 25 25 27 27 19
Total Average 1.7 1.5 1.6 3.7 1.6 2.5
Median 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.5 1.0 .8
Maximum 35.0 20.0 20.0 154.0 69.0 75.0
Minimum .1 .1 .0 .1 .1 .1
Responses 335 292 233 314 309 247

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month
One of the most important indicators of the resources needed to effectively run a credit
department is the number of invoices generated per day. The survey showed a strong correlation
between staff sizes in credit and the number of invoices generated per day. This section has
several charts detailing average staff sizes by industry category compared to the number of
invoices generated per day.
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Consumer Products

# of Invoices Mgmt/ Credit Risk Billing/ FTEs - FTEs - Cash Deduction
Per Month Supervision Analysis Invoicing Collections Application Handling
Less than Average .7 .6 1.0 .8 .5 .6
1,000 Responses 14 13 15 14 16 13
1,000 to 4,999 Average 1.4 .8 .9 2.1 1.0 2.2
Responses 38 34 20 38 34 32
5,000 to Average 2.0 1.2 1.5 4.1 1.7 3.3
24,999 Responses 43 37 32 42 40 37
25,000 & up Average 4.7 3.4 1.4 8.0 3.4 10.9
Responses 19 19 12 19 18 15
Total Average 2.1 1.4 1.2 3.7 1.6 3.8
Responses 114 103 79 113 108 97
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Industrial Products

# of Invoices Management FTEs - Credit Billing/ FTEs - Cash Deduction
Per Month /Supervision Risk Analysis Invoicing Collections Application Handling
Less than Average 1.2 .7 .7 .9 .6 .5
1,000 Responses 24 20 18 19 22 15
1,000 to 4,999 Average .9 .7 .6 1.2 .6 .4
Responses 14 11 11 14 13 10
5,000 to Average 1.5 1.5 1.0 3.9 1.8 1.6
24,999 Responses 19 17 8 15 16 16
25,000 & up Average 2.0 4.3 4.5 6.5 3.8 1.7
Total Average 1.3 1.2 .9 2.2 1.1 1.0
Responses 60 51 39 51 54 44

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Wholesale/Distributors
FTEs -
FTEs - Credit FTEs - FTEs - FTEs -
# of Invoices Management Risk Billing/ FTEs - Cash Deduction
Per Month /Supervision Analysis Invoicing Collections Application Handling
Less than Average .4 .3 .6 .5 .3 .3
1,000 Responses 16 17 15 17 18 14
1,000 to 4,999 Average .7 1.0 .9 1.0 .7 .7
Responses 32 28 21 26 27 20
5,000 to Average 1.1 .7 2.0 2.7 1.0 .6
24,999 Responses 15 14 14 17 16 12
25,000 & up Average 6.4 5.4 3.1 30.9 10.6 16.1
Total Average 1.4 1.2 1.2 4.4 1.8 2.3
Responses 72 65 52 67 69 52
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Construction

FTEs -
# of Invoices Management/ Risk Billing/ FTEs - Cash Deduction
Per Month Supervision Analysis Invoicing Collections Application Handling
Less than Average .5 .5 .8 .6 .8 .5
1,000 Responses 3 3 3 3 3 3
1,000 to 4,999 Average 1.0 1.5 1.5 5.5 1.0 1.0
5,000 to Average 1.6 1.6 2.8 4.1 1.8 2.4
24,999 Responses 6 6 3 6 5 3
25,000 & up Average 2.7 2.1 2.3 2.6
Responses 3 2 2 2
Total Average 1.5 1.4 1.7 3.2 1.3 1.7
Responses 14 13 8 13 10 9
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Services

FTEs -
Less than Average .2 1.8 1.1 .4 .2 .3
1,000 Responses 4 3 4 4 4 3
1,000 to 4,999 Average .8 .5 1.3 1.9 .9 .3
5,000 to Average 2.3 7.0 6.0 8.2 3.3 2.0
24,999 Responses 4 3 2 5 4 3
25,000 & up Average 6.1 10.5 10.9 15.9 3.5 .5
Total Average 2.3 5.3 3.8 6.4 1.8 1.0
Responses 13 9 11 15 13 8

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Media
FTEs -
Less than Average .2 .1 .5 .3
1,000 Responses 1 1 1 1
1,000 to 4,999 Average .7 .2 .7 .6 .7 .2
5,000 to Average 4.8 2.9 8.1 7.8 3.4 2.1
24,999 Responses 3 3 2 3 2 2
Total Average 2.4 1.8 3.7 4.2 1.5 1.5
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Other

FTEs -
1,000 to 4,999 Average .9 1.1 2.3 2.4 .7 2.0
Responses 10 8 9 10 10 5
5,000 to Average 2.0 1.7 2.6 4.1 1.6 2.6
24,999 Responses 9 9 8 7 9 5
25,000 & up Average 3.5 2.8 5.0 15.3 3.0 2.2
Total Average 1.7 1.8 3.0 4.8 1.3 1.8
Responses 28 24 24 26 26 18
The table below represents a composite of several types of businesses. It shows the strong
relationship between the number of invoices generated and staff requirements. Invoice volume is
one of the strongest indicators of staff needs.
Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – All categories

FTEs -
Less than Average .8 .8 1.0 .8 .5 .5
1,000 Responses 69 63 61 65 70 55
1,000 to 4,999 Average 1.0 .9 1.1 1.7 .8 1.4
Responses 101 85 69 95 92 70
5,000 to Average 1.8 1.5 2.1 4.1 1.7 2.4
24,999 Responses 99 89 69 95 92 78
25,000 & up Average 4.6 4.0 3.3 12.9 5.0 9.2
Responses 42 36 22 39 35 30
Total Average 1.7 1.5 1.6 3.8 1.5 2.5
Responses 311 273 221 294 289 233

Staff Size vs. A/R Balances & Invoices Generated Per Month
In an effort to present the most valuable data, we’ve scanned the survey for relationships that matter most.
What are the most meaningful metrics when examining staffing? The tables on the next two pages
illustrate the impact of two significant variables – average A/R balance and the # of invoices generated
per month– on staff sizes. Each variable is significant, but together, you can get an even better picture of
how you stand vs. your peers when you look at both together.

Staff Size by A/R Balance & Invoice Volume – Selected Positions – A
FTEs -
Total A/R # of Invoices Management FTEs - Credit FTEs -
balance Per Month /Supervision Risk Analysis Collections
Less than Less than Average .8 .9 .6
$10 million 1,000 Responses 43 41 41
1,000 to 4,999 Average .7 .5 1.0
Responses 49 41 47
5,000 to 24,999 Average 1.2 .9 2.0
Responses 17 16 19
25,000 & up Average 1.7 1.5 9.8
Responses 3 2 2
Total Average .9 .8 1.2
Responses 112 100 109
$10 to $49 Less than Average .8 .7 1.1
million 1,000 Responses 24 21 22
1,000 to 4,999 Average .9 1.1 1.6
Responses 35 30 32
5,000 to 24,999 Average 1.2 1.0 2.8
Responses 25 20 23
25,000 & up Average 1.6 3.0 3.2
Responses 7 5 7
Total Average 1.0 1.1 1.9
Responses 91 76 84
$50 to $199 Less than Average .8 .2 .7
1,000 to 4,999 Average 1.7 1.3 3.7
Responses 15 12 14
5,000 to 24,999 Average 2.1 1.4 4.7
Responses 41 38 38
25,000 & up Average 3.9 4.2 11.3
Responses 12 10 12
Responses 71 62 67
$200 Million 1,000 to 4,999 Average 3.4 1.8 6.3
& up Responses 3 3 3
5,000 to 24,999 Average 2.8 3.0 7.7
Responses 15 14 13
25,000 & up Average 6.8 4.5 19.2
Responses 19 18 17
Responses 37 35 33
Total Less than Average .8 .8 .8
1,000 Responses 70 64 66
1,000 to 4,999 Average 1.0 .9 1.8
Responses 102 86 96
5,000 to 24,999 Average 1.8 1.5 4.1
Responses 98 88 93
25,000 & up Average 4.7 4.0 13.2
Responses 41 35 38

Staff Size by A/R Balances & Invoice Volume - Selected Positions – B
FTEs - FTEs -
Total A/R # of Invoices Cash Billing/ Total
balance Per Month Application Invoicing Staff
Less than Less than Average .4 .9 4.9
$10 1,000 Responses 45 42 33
million 1,000 to 4,999 Average .6 .8 3.9
Responses 49 39 25
5,000 to Average 1.0 .9 6.7
24,999 Responses 18 13 6
25,000 & up Average 5.0 .5
Responses 1 1
Total Average .6 .8 4.7
Responses 113 95 64
$10 to $49 Less than Average .7 1.3 14.2
1,000 to 4,999 Average .8 .7 6.1
Responses 29 19 12
5,000 to Average 1.1 1.8 9.0
24,999 Responses 22 15 12
25,000 & up Average 2.4 2.2 12.8
Responses 7 4 3
Responses 81 55 39
$50 to Less than Average .7 .3 2.9
$199 1,000 Responses 3 3 2
million 1,000 to 4,999 Average 1.6 2.5 13.7
Responses 12 10 8
5,000 to Average 1.8 2.3 17.0
24,999 Responses 39 30 23
25,000 & up Average 2.2 4.2 16.8
Responses 11 6 5
Responses 65 49 38
$200 1,000 to 4,999 Average 2.1 1.6 9.0
Million & Responses 3 2 2
up 5,000 to Average 3.3 3.0 21.4
24,999 Responses 13 11 10
25,000 & up Average 8.4 3.1 51.5
Responses 15 10 7
Responses 31 23 19
Total Less than Average .5 1.0 7.2
1,000 Responses 71 62 47
1,000 to 4,999 Average .8 1.0 6.3
Responses 93 70 47
5,000 to Average 1.7 2.1 14.8
24,999 Responses 92 69 51
25,000 & up Average 5.0 3.1 32.2
Responses 34 21 15

Staffing Adequacy by Industry
In this table, we examined the percentage of respondents who feel they are adequately (or,
alternatively, inadequately) staffed by industry to look for any overall trends. As you can see,
manufacturers of industrial products seem to be the most stressed classification (not including
’Other,’ which is a composite) as far as staffing levels, with their counterparts on the consumer
side fairing relatively better.
Is your staffing
adequate?
Yes No Total
Line of Mfging - Consumer Count 94 22 116
Business Goods Percent 81.0% 19.0% 100.0%
Mfging - Industrial Prods Count 39 21 60
Percent 65.0% 35.0% 100.0%
Wholesale/Distribitor Count 58 22 80
Percent 72.5% 27.5% 100.0%
Construction Count 11 3 14
Percent 78.6% 21.4% 100.0%
Services Count 10 4 14
Percent 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%
Media Count 7 0 7
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Other Count 16 13 29
Percent 55.2% 44.8% 100.0%
Total Count 237 86 323
Percent 73.4% 26.6% 100.0%

Staffing Shortfall by Industry and A/R Balances
Of those who are understaffed, it would take on average, 1.7 additional staffers to get them up to
where they’d like to be.
Digging a little deeper, we find that, on a percentage basis, fewer consumer products
manufacturing credit execs believe they are short-staffed. But those that are understaffed in
consumer products face a greater shortfall than their counterparts in industrial manufacturing, as
illustrated by the following table:
# of FTEs required to make your staffing level adequate?

Line of Business Total A/R balance Average Responses
Mfging - Consumer Less than $10 million 1.3 9
$50 to $199 million 2.0 3
$200 Million & up 2.0 1
Total 1.7 20
Mfging - Industrial Less than $10 million 1.0 11
Prods $10 to $49 million 1.3 3
$50 to $199 million 1.8 5
$200 Million & up 2.0 1
Total 1.3 20
Wholesale/Distribitor Less than $10 million 1.6 11
$10 to $49 million 2.4 5
$50 to $199 million 3.0 4
$200 Million & up 1.0 1
Total 2.0 21
Construction $10 to $49 million 1.0 1
$50 to $199 million 2.0 1
$200 Million & up 1.0 1
Total 1.3 3
Services Less than $10 million .5 2
$10 to $49 million 4.0 1
$50 to $199 million 6.0 1
Total 2.8 4
Other Less than $10 million .6 2
$10 to $49 million 2.2 3
$50 to $199 million 1.0 1
$200 Million & up 1.3 2
Total 1.4 8
$10 to $49 million 2.1 20
$50 to $199 million 2.4 15
$200 Million & up 1.4 6
Total 1.7 76

Impact of Staffing Shortfall on DSO
We also found a significant relationship between whether or not a credit department is

adequately staffed and DSO levels. Those who feel their credit department is adequately staffed
have an overall DSO level of 41.7 days, while those who believe they are understaffed have a
collective DSO of 50.7 days.
We checked to see if there was any difference in DSO for firms that took advantage of
automation and/or credit services/outsourcing compared to those that did not. In all the scenarios
we ran, DSO close to the 44.2 day average of our entire sample, whether or not technology or
credit services/outsourcing was employed.
One can’t say for sure that a staffing shortfall is the CAUSE of this 9 day difference, as there are
many other variables. But it’s certainly a good theory. Our belief is that in a well-run credit
department, staffing is an investment (not a cost) that pays dividends and this statistic certainly
offers support to that.

Average DSO by Industry Type
There were no surprises in this DSO summary. Media and Construction were significantly above
the entire sample average as you would expect for industry groupings hit hard by this economy,
while services were below average, though it should be noted that the sample size for these three
industry groups was small.
DSO
Average
DSO
Line of Business (Days) Responses
Mfging - Consumer Goods 42.4 119
Mfging - Industrial Prods 44.6 75
Wholesale/Distribitor 41.9 77
Construction 51.7 14
Services 36.4 13
Media 61.1 7
Other 52.4 27
Total 44.2 335

Average DSO by Annual Revenue
DSO
Line of Annual revenue Average Responses
Business
Consumer $100 million to $499 million 49.0 25
Goods $500 million to < $2 Billion 40.5 41
$2 Billion & up 30.6 22
Overall Avg in Category 42.5 116
Industrial $100 million to $499 million 45.5 33
Prods $500 million to < $2 Billion 41.3 10
$2 Billion & up 45.9 9
Distribitor $100 million to $499 million 44.4 21
$500 million to < $2 Billion 44.0 7
Construction Less than $100 million 65.3 3
$100 million to $499 million 46.2 5
Media Less than $100 million 51.3 4
Finance Less than $100 million 55.5 2
$2 Billion & up 35.1 41

Average DSO by Total A/R Balance
DSO
Line of Total A/R balance Average Responses
Business
Consumer $10 to $49 million 41.9 29
$200 Million & up 45.0 17
Total 42.6 118
Industrial $10 to $49 million 41.5 32
Prods $50 to $199 million 52.5 14
$200 Million & up 47.2 7
Total 44.6 75
Distribitor $10 to $49 million 42.2 21
$50 to $199 million 51.1 8
$200 Million & up 43.5 4
Total 41.9 77
Construction Less than $10 million 39.5 2
$10 to $49 million 57.6 5
$50 to $199 million 51.5 4
$200 Million & up 50.2 3
Total 51.7 14
$10 to $49 million 51.5 2
$50 to $199 million 29.5 2
Total 35.7 12
Media Less than $10 million 51.3 4
Total 61.2 6
Finance Less than $10 million 55.5 2
Total 55.5 2
$10 to $49 million 51.1 12
$50 to $199 million 69.8 5
$200 Million & up 37.2 7
Total 52.4 27
$10 to $49 million 43.9 101
$50 to $199 million 46.6 76
$200 Million & up 44.7 41
Total 44.2 332

Average DSO by Number of Active Accounts
DSO
Line of # of Active Accts Average Responses
Business
Mfging - Less than 1,000 38.6 44
Consumer 1,000 to 4,999 44.8 54
Goods 5,000 to 24,999 44.5 20
Overall Average 42.4 119
Industrial 1,000 to 4,999 46.5 32
Prods 5,000 to 24,999 44.3 6
Wholesale/ Less than 1,000 44.4 29
Distribitor 1,000 to 4,999 39.6 39
5,000 to 24,999 37.0 4
25,000 & up 47.9 5
Construction Less than 1,000 77.5 2
1,000 to 4,999 47.4 8
5,000 to 24,999 47.4 4
Services Less than 1,000 24.0 4
1,000 to 4,999 39.3 4
5,000 to 24,999 49.1 4
Media Less than 1,000 56.7 3
1,000 to 4,999 65.7 3
Finance Less than 1,000 55.5 2
Other Less than 1,000 53.4 13
1,000 to 4,999 61.3 8
5,000 to 24,999 38.6 4
25,000 & up 38.0 2
Total Less than 1,000 43.2 135
1,000 to 4,999 45.1 148
5,000 to 24,999 44.3 43
25,000 & up 41.4 9

Average DSO by Number of Invoices Per Month
DSO
Line of # of Invoices Per Month Average Responses
Business
Consumer 1,000 to 4,999 40.9 38
Goods 5,000 to 24,999 48.4 39
25,000 & up 38.1 19
Industrial 1,000 to 4,999 42.2 16
Prods 5,000 to 24,999 44.7 20
25,000 & up 51.3 4
Wholesale/ Less than 1,000 43.0 13
Distribitor 1,000 to 4,999 41.9 32
5,000 to 24,999 45.4 18
25,000 & up 37.2 9
Construction Less than 1,000 77.5 2
1,000 to 4,999 54.1 2
5,000 to 24,999 45.0 6
25,000 & up 50.2 3
Services Less than 1,000 31.1 3
1,000 to 4,999 38.3 3
5,000 to 24,999 35.9 5
25,000 & up 42.5 2
Media 1,000 to 4,999 43.7 3
5,000 to 24,999 74.3 3
Finance Less than 1,000 55.5 2
Other Less than 1,000 86.5 4
1,000 to 4,999 41.0 9
5,000 to 24,999 52.9 10
25,000 & up 40.3 3
Total Less than 1,000 47.4 64
1,000 to 4,999 41.7 103
5,000 to 24,999 47.5 101
25,000 & up 40.4 41

Efficiency Strategies
Software technologies have a solid track record of increasing credit department efficiency.
Nonetheless, as the following graph illustrates, most firms have yet to comprehensively adopt
credit and collection automation technologies. While accounting and ERP software suites
continue to improve, their strength is not in providing credit and collection functionality, and so
credit organizations must either turn to best-in-breed (also known as bolt-on solutions) or ask
their in-house IT staff to create software tools if they want to realize the benefits of automated
workflow processing and advanced decision support.
As the above graph illustrates, Automated Remittance Processing (Auto-cash) and

Imaging/Electronic Content Management solutions have the highest adoption rates. It is also
interesting that Credit Risk Analysis Software has a substantial lead over Collections Software,
despite the higher ROI associated with collection software. A possible explanation for this
revolves around the thought that credit pros are more comfortable with automation that involves
specific analytical tasks such as calculating spreadsheet ratios, generating a credit score or
matching payments to invoices, rather than the linear workflow processed associated with
collections and deductions. With the contraction we have seen in staffing, it will be interesting to
see if the adoption rates for automation increase.

A review of the following tables, which examine each type of automation tool by both Industry
and A/R Portfolio Size, reveals the following interesting facts:
• In most cases, firms with over $50 million in A/R are more likely to automate than those
under the $50 million threshold.
o The larger firms generally exceed the average adoptions rates shown in the above
graph while the smaller firms fall below
o The one notable exception involves the use of Customer Self-Service/EIPP tools,
where firms with less than $10 million in A/R exceed the average adoption rate
and those over $200 million fall below the average
o Otherwise, the smallest firms (under $10 million in A/R) generally automate the
least, while the largest firms (over $200 million) automate the most. This rule of
thumb is entirely consistent with the concept that the greater your volume of
work, the greater will be the benefits of automation. And it is why larger firms
clearly have the advantage when it comes to automation.
• In terms of the use of automation in different industries, we were able to make some
interesting observations between the Industrial/Distribution firms and those in other
sectors
o For the industries where we have large samples (Consumer Products

Manufacturing, Industrial Products Manufacturing and Wholesalers) there were
no real surprises - the consumer folks utilize collection, deduction, auto-cash and
imaging software more than the other two, as would be expected.
o When we group construction, services and media together, we have a substantial
sample, and so can observe that, as a group, they have taken more advantage of
automation than the industrial and wholesale segments, which is interesting.
o Industrial Manufacturing and Wholesale/distribution therefore appear to be a bit
behind the curve in adopting technology

Credit Risk Analysis Software by Industry
Credit Risk Analysis
Software
No Yes Total
Mfging - Consumer Responses 118 18 136
Goods Percent 86.8% 13.2% 100.0%
Mfging - Industrial Prods Responses 70 10 80
Percent 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%
Wholesale/Distribitor Responses 74 16 90
Percent 82.2% 17.8% 100.0%
Construction Responses 12 4 16
Percent 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Services Responses 12 4 16
Percent 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Media Responses 5 2 7
Percent 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%
Other Responses 25 6 31
Percent 80.6% 19.4% 100.0%
Total Responses 318 61 379
Percent 83.9% 16.1% 100.0%
Credit Risk Analysis Software by A/R Portfolio Size

Credit Risk Analysis
Software
No Yes Total
Total A/R Less than $10 million Responses 130 16 146
balance Percent 89.0% 11.0% 100.0%
$10 to $49 million Responses 98 17 115
Percent 85.2% 14.8% 100.0%
Percent 82.9% 17.1% 100.0%
$200 Million & up Responses 27 14 41
Percent 65.9% 34.1% 100.0%
Percent 84.1% 15.9% 100.0%

Collection Software by Industry
Use Collection
Software
No Yes Total
Line of Mfging - Consumer Responses 121 15 136
Business Goods Percent 89.0% 11.0% 100%
Percent 95.0% 5.0% 100%
Percent 93.3% 6.7% 100%
Percent 75.0% 25.0% 100%
Percent 68.8% 31.3% 100%
Percent 71.4% 28.6% 100%
Finance Responses 2 0 2
Percent 100.0% .0% 100%
Percent 93.5% 6.5% 100%
Percent 90.0% 10.0% 100%
Collection Software by A/R Portfolio Size

Use Collection
Software
No Yes Total
Total Less than $10 Responses 139 7 146
A/R million Percent 95.2% 4.8% 100.0%
balance $10 to $49 million Responses 110 5 115
Percent 95.7% 4.3% 100.0%
$50 to $199 Responses 67 15 82
million Percent 81.7% 18.3% 100.0%
Percent 75.6% 24.4% 100.0%
Percent 90.4% 9.6% 100.0%

Deduction Software by Industry
Use Deduction
Management
Solutions
No Yes Total
Percent 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Percent 97.8% 2.2% 100.0%
Percent 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Percent 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%
Percent 100% .0% 100.0%
Percent 100% .0% 100.0%
Percent 90.3% 9.7% 100.0%
Percent 92.6% 7.4% 100.0%
Deduction Software by A/R Portfolio Size

Use Deduction
Management
Solutions
No Yes Total
Percent 95.7% 4.3% 100.0%
$50 to $199 Responses 69 13 82
Percent 82.9% 17.1% 100.0%
Percent 92.7% 7.3% 100.0%

Customer Self-Service/EIPP Portal by Industry
Use Customer
Self Service
Portal or EIPP
No Yes Total
Percent 96.3% 3.8% 100.0%
Percent 91.1% 8.9% 100.0%
Percent 81.3% 18.8% 100.0%
Percent 93.8% 6.3% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 94.2% 5.8% 100.0%
Customer Self-Service/EIPP Portal by A/R Portfolio Size

Have a
Customer Self
Service Portal or
EIPP
No Yes Total
Percent 97.4% 2.6% 100.0%
Percent 91.5% 8.5% 100.0%
Percent 95.1% 4.9% 100.0%
Percent 94.3% 5.7% 100.0%

Automated Remittance Processing (Auto-Cash) by Industry
Use auto
cash/Automated
remittance process
No Yes Total
Line of Mfging - Consumer Goods Responses 92 44 136
Business Percent 67.6% 32.4% 100.0%
Percent 76.3% 23.8% 100.0%
Percent 86.7% 13.3% 100.0%
Percent 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Percent 81.3% 18.8% 100.0%
Percent 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 80.6% 19.4% 100.0%
Percent 76.3% 23.7% 100.0%
Automated Remittance Processing (Auto-Cash) by A/R Portfolio Size

Use Auto
cash/Automated
remittance
processes
No Yes Total
Percent 78.3% 21.7% 100.0%
$50 to $199 Responses 48 34 82
Percent 48.8% 51.2% 100.0%
Percent 76.4% 23.6% 100.0%

Imaging/Content Management Solutions by Industry
Use Imaging
Content
Management
Solutions
No Yes Total
Percent 86.3% 13.8% 100.0%
Percent 81.1% 18.9% 100.0%
Percent 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Percent 68.8% 31.3% 100.0%
Percent 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 83.9% 16.1% 100.0%
Percent 79.5% 20.5% 100.0%
Imaging/Content Management Solutions by A/R Portfolio Size

Use
Imaging/Content
Management
Solutions
No Yes Total
Total A/R Less than $10 million Responses 132 15 147
balance Percent 89.8% 10.2% 100.0%
Percent 78.3% 21.7% 100.0%
Percent 70.7% 29.3% 100.0%
Percent 63.4% 36.6% 100.0%
Percent 79.5% 20.5% 100.0%

Page left blank on purpose

Credit Services and Outsourcing Data & Trends
Outsourcing has finally gained a significant foothold within the credit and collection community.
When we conducted our 2005 Staff Benchmarking Survey, Remittance Processing was the most
popular outsourcing activity, being utilized by just 3.5 percent of our sample. By 2009 that figure
had jumped to 9.2 percent. As the following graph illustrates, the percentage of organizations
employing outsourcing has grown considerably over the last five years.
*In 2005 we only had one category for all credit outsourcing activities, so for the sake of
comparison with 2009/10, we have used the 2009/10 percentage for Credit Analysis. However
you look at it, the growth in the outsourcing of credit activities has been substantial.
For the current study, it seemed appropriate to examine a wider range of credit services and
outsourcing types. The big surprise in terms of usage was not that Lockbox/Check Deposit led
the rest of the field by a wide margin, but that over 60 percent of our sample apparently does not
have a bank lockbox – we would have expected half that amount. UCC/Lien Management was
the only other activity to exceed 10 percent penetration within the sample.

Outsourcing of Credit Applications
Percent of credit
departments
outsourcing the
processing of credit
applications
No Yes
Line of Mfging - Consumer Responses 131 5
Business Goods Percent 96.3% 3.7%
Mfging - Industrial Prods Responses 79 1
Percent 98.8% 1.3%
Wholesale/Distribitor Responses 87 3
Percent 96.7% 3.3%
Construction Responses 13 3
Percent 81.3% 18.8%
Services Responses 14 2
Percent 87.5% 12.5%
Media Responses 7 0
Percent 100.0% .0%
Finance Responses 2 1
Percent 66.7% 33.3%
Other Responses 29 2
Percent 93.5% 6.5%
Total Responses 363 17
Percent 95.5% 4.5%
Outsourcing of the Reference Checking Process

Percent of credit
departments that
outsource reference
checking
No Yes
Percent 95.0% 5.0%
Percent 92.2% 7.8%
Percent 75.0% 25.0%
Percent 87.5% 12.5%
Media Responses 7 0
Percent 100.0% .0%
Percent 66.7% 33.3%
Percent 100.0% .0%
Percent 92.6% 7.4%

Outsourcing of the Order Approval Process
Percent of credit
departments that
outsource some part of
the order approval
process
No Yes
Percent 98.8% 1.3%
Percent 95.6% 4.4%
Percent 93.8% 6.3%
Percent 100.0% .0%
Media Responses 7 0
Percent 100.0% .0%
Percent 66.7% 33.3%
Percent 100.0% .0%
Percent 96.3% 3.7%
Outsourcing of Credit Analysis/Scoring

Percent of credit
departments that
outsource credit
analysis and/or
scoring
No Yes
Percent 97.5% 2.5%
Percent 91.1% 8.9%
Percent 87.5% 12.5%
Percent 75.0% 25.0%
Media Responses 6 1
Percent 85.7% 14.3%
Percent 66.7% 33.3%
Percent 100.0% .0%
Percent 90.5% 9.5%

Outsourcing of Portfolio Analysis/Credit Scoring
Percent of credit
departments that
outsource portfolio risk
analysis/credit scoring
No Yes
Percent 96.3% 3.8%
Percent 92.2% 7.8%
Percent 81.3% 18.8%
Percent 75.0% 25.0%
Media Responses 7 0
Percent 100.0% .0%
Percent 66.7% 33.3%
Percent 100.0% .0%
Percent 91.6% 8.4%
Outsourcing of Collections (1st Party)
Outsourcing of
Collections
No Yes Total
Percent 93.8% 6.3% 100.0%
Percent 92.2% 7.8% 100.0%
Percent 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%
Percent 75.0% 25.0% 100.0%
Percent 71.4% 28.6% 100.0%
Percent 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Percent 100% .0% 100.0%
Percent 91.8% 8.2% 100.0%

Outsourcing of Dunning Activities
Outsourcing of
Dunning Notices
No Yes Total
Percent 97.5% 2.5% 100.0%
Percent 94.4% 5.6% 100.0%
Percent 87.5% 12.5% 100.0%
Percent 81.3% 18.8% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Percent 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Percent 94.5% 5.5% 100.0%
Outsourcing of Deduction Handling
Outsourcing of
Deductions
No Yes Total
Percent 98.8% 1.3% 100.0%
Percent 94.4% 5.6% 100.0%
Percent 100% .0% 100.0%
Percent 100% .0% 100.0%
Percent 100% .0% 100.0%
Percent 100% .0% 100.0%
Percent 100% .0% 100.0%
Percent 96.3% 3.7% 100.0%

Outsourcing of UCC/Lien Management
Outsourcing of
UCCs/Liens
No Yes Total
Percent 92.5% 7.5% 100.0%
Percent 76.7% 23.3% 100.0%
Percent 56.3% 43.8% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Percent 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Percent 87.9% 12.1% 100.0%
Outsourcing of Lockbox/Check Deposit
Outsourcing of
Lockbox Services
No Yes Total
Percent 61.3% 38.8% 100.0%
Percent 64.4% 35.6% 100.0%
Percent 62.5% 37.5% 100.0%
Percent 56.3% 43.8% 100.0%
Percent 57.1% 42.9% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 64.5% 35.5% 100.0%
Percent 61.3% 38.7% 100.0%

Outsourcing of Remittance Processing
Outsourcing of
Remittance
Processing
No Yes Total
Percent 91.3% 8.8% 100.0%
Percent 92.2% 7.8% 100.0%
Percent 93.8% 6.3% 100.0%
Percent 93.8% 6.3% 100.0%
Percent 100.0% .0% 100.0%
Percent 66.7% 33.3% 100.0%
Percent 96.8% 3.2% 100.0%
Percent 90.8% 9.2% 100.0%

Survey Demographics
Validation
About 400 companies participated in the survey. We spent considerable time reviewing and
validating all data entries in search of entry errors, winnowing out responses that – for whatever
reason – didn’t quite make sense. We ended up using data from over 380 companies of all sizes,
including both a good portion of the Fortune 500 as well as companies with smaller credit, A/R,
and collections operations. This is comparable to the 2005 survey, when we had 420 companies
participate with 408 validated.
Business Types
We were able to capture a significant representative sample for three industries: Consumer goods
manufacturing, wholesale/distributors, and industrial products manufacturing. As a result, we are
very confident in any statistical conclusions reached in these three industries. At the same time,
while the benchmarking data for the Services, Construction and Media industries can be
extremely useful, care needs to be taken when drawing statistical conclusions for these three. No
other industry exceeded one percent; these are therefore captured in the “other” classification.
The following four graphics provide an additional breakdown of our sample distribution by
revenue, AR balance, number of customers, and number of invoices generated per month. As
you can see, each segment of each of these key credit department characteristics is well
represented except for firms with over 25,000 active customers.

Essay Questions
Besides collecting quantitative data, we also asked our survey participants to answer a couple of
questions relative to their biggest challenges related to staffing and how they were dealing with
them. We are therefore including here those responses from participants who agreed to be
quoted. To organize the responses, we have also grouped them under several broad categories.
Question: What steps are you taking to compensate for your staffing
shortage?
It would appear from the responses that follow is that there is a lot of overtime being worked.
Credit managers are also supplementing their staffs with any incremental clerical support they
can find. Other firms have looked for ways to enhance productivity including realigning staff
duties, re-prioritizing work, implementing automation and offering performance incentives.
Staffing / Hours
“I (Credit Mgr) am working extra hours to compensate for the staffing shortage. Whenever I can, I ask
one of the Administrative Assistants or the Receptionist to assist with letters, mailings, etc.” - Cindy
Weston, Finance Manager, Diamond Sports
“Working overtime.” - Renee Ames, Credit and Collections Analyst, Morrow Equipment Company, LLC
“Overtime.” - Lisa Davis, Accounting Manager, American Alarm & Communications
“We are working longer hours and harder.” - Bambi Fisher, Accounting Manager, Lowry Holding
Company
“Currently in a hiring freeze mode and losses are not being replaced due to reduced sales and general
economic conditions.” - Burton E. Kidd, Corporate Credit Manager, Alamo Cement Company and Alamo
Concrete Products Limited
“We do allow some overtime for our cash application and deduction analyst and we have two part-time
students that do the clerical tasks to free up time for the full-time employees.” - Linda Neuman, Credit
Manager, NTN Bearing Corporation of America
“Longer hours - utilizing people from other departments that are slow to do some of the clerical work -
working with our MIS team to find better solutions electronically.” - Roseann Phillips, National Credit
Manager, Delair Group LLC
“Working longer hours and Saturdays.” - Anonymous
“We just recently went through a lay-off that decreased the staff in this area, and are currently
brainstorming and working on methods to compensate.” - Deborah Andrews, Corporate Credit Manager,
Imperial Nurseries, Inc.
“This is a tricky one to answer. I actually have 43 positions allotted to my department. But transactional
volume has decreased over the past year so I've elected to not fill a few vacancies as they've come up.
Nevertheless, I've not eliminated the positions, waiting to see if volume picks up and to see how a new
ERP system (SAP) will affect workload. So the correct answer is .... maybe.” - Kurt Sorensen, Corporate
Credit Manager, H&E Equipment Services, Inc.

“Nothing. We're still cutting people.” - Daphne McEllroy, Credit Manager, Ferguson Enterprises
“I am the only person in credit and collections at this time. Our controller is doing the invoicing and our
staff accountant is applying cash just so we are approved by the auditors. I am working overtime every
week.” - Cynthia Piper, Credit Manager, CSC Worldwide
Productivity Initiatives
“Reallocation of market responsibilities among current collection representatives. Although we have

actually improved with one less representative, we could probably be even better replacing the rep that we
lost in September.” - Anonymous
“Overtime; Prioritization of work and selecting which work not to complete, e.g. credit risk analysis
(should be 1-2 people to adequately support our organization).” - Cynthia M. Wieme, CCE, CICP,
MICM, MBA, Manager, Financial Services, Jeppesen Sanderson Inc.
“Management involvement in regular collections duties. Credit/Collections involved in AR duties

(invoicing, cash posting, etc.)” - Dan Clayton, Director, Credit and Collections, NetScout Systems, Inc.
“Automating where possible, overtime, time management, setting priorities.” - Valarie Murray, Manager,
Credit and Collections, Zarlink Semiconductor, Inc.
“Training and software.” - Samantha Simmons, Credit Manager, Criterion Brock
“Right now everything is being handled by the credit manager: collections, invoicing, credit insurance
coverage and any and all accounts receivable. Working on removing some of the time consuming projects
to the accounting department.” - Lori Weddle, Credit Manager, Plasti-Fab, Inc.
“Working smarter. Enlisting assistance for cash posting back-up from other dedicated positions.
Shortening collection cycle with stricter guidelines for open terms. Placing delinquent accounts sooner
than in past. Using more electronic enhancements to process data.” - Nina Fritzler, Credit Manager,
United Tile
“Outsourcing reporting and other minor responsibilities to other departments i.e. accounting.” - Angela
Ventimiglia, Global Credit Manager, Fike Corporation
“We are offering compensation bonuses for performance, as well as implementing limited salary
increases.” - Rick Gutierrez, Financial Solutions Manager, Cargill Salt
Question: From a staff perspective, what do you see as the

predominant challenge over the course of the next 12 months? How
do you intend to address this challenge?
The challenges of collecting in the current economy are affecting a lot of credit pros and that
concern is closely followed by the attention they are giving risk monitoring and decisioning. A
significant number also reported deductions as an ongoing or increasing challenge. Staff
training and efficiency were also mentioned as a key challenge along with time and workload
management issues. Staff motivation is also a big concern. Lastly, a sizable group are
addressing their challenges with automation tools.
Credit/Collections/Deductions
“Keeping customers within a safe credit balance. Managing their limits.” - Jackie Maze, Credit Manager,
Cadet Manufacturing
“Doing as much as we can to ensure that we are extending open credit terms to only financially viable
companies, while being able to make good commercial decisions for the customers and markets we serve.
We will continue use of credit reports and trade references, and increase requirements for prepayment or
COD terms where little or good credit history exists.” - Don Gaskill, Finance Director, Mill Log
Equipment
“Keeping our DSO at or under 45.” - Laura Smith, Credit Manager, General Tool & Supply Company
“Maintaining collections within 30 days is a must during economic down slopes in order to sufficiently
maintain cash flow quotas. Keeping current on a daily basis is the best way to stay informed and to collect
payment within 30 days. Non-supervision after the 31st day of "payment due" on an invoice is the first
step to past 60 days and eventually non payment!!! Time management is money management, first and
foremost, with receivables!!!” - Liz Fraser, Accounting Manager, D & D Door, Inc.
“The most difficult challenge in the next 12 months will be continuing to build sales in a depressed
economy while striving to balance risk while customers are forced to push out payments due to cash flow
restriction. CriterionBrock will continue to treat each customer and their circumstances individually
while supporting our debt load with responsible and ethically appropriate credit practices. We will
continue to look for out of the box solutions to keep our customers receiving our services but also
requiring payment for those services.” - Samantha Simmons, Credit Manager, CriterionBrock
“More accounts to collections. Be more diligent with updating and reviewing old customers and new
applications.” - Carol Johnson, CICP, Corporate Credit Manager, Climax Portable Machine Tools, Inc.
“Managing deductions. Set in place more effective policy, informing customer of expectations and
following up.” - Stephanie Boccardo, Senior Credit Analyst, Golden Temple
“The main challenge is the economy, both US and global. Restrictive banking has tightened the
customer's cash and therefore causing more delays in collection.” - David Lundrigan, Corporate Credit
Manager, Western Forest Products
“Invoice accuracy and improving customer compliance while working through mismatches.” - Lori
Kleinschmit, Director, Customer Service, ConAgra Foods
“Collection money in the credit crunched economy.” - Rich Balla, VP Accounting, Tour Edge Golf
Manufacturing, Inc.
“Keeping the staff focused on the receivables and monitoring the economic climate.” - Joe Clark, VP
Credit, Altadis USA Inc
“The poor economic climate has been a challenge for our smaller customers. Many are reporting that
their sales have dropped dramatically. I am trying to set up payment plans rather than send an account to
collection. My other big challenge is going to be staying on top of my responsibilities since I am so short
staffed. I will be working a lot of extra hours, including week-ends, in order to stay afloat during our
upcoming busy season.” - Cindy Weston, Finance Manager, Diamond Sports
“I do not foresee any changes in staffing over the next 12 month. The main issue will be collecting from
accounts as their credit issues escalate.” - Rick Quiett, Manager Credit Services, Wayne Farms
“Closer monitoring on all customer, more frequent credit reviews. Maintaining customer goodwill but
still insuring an adequate cash flow. It is expected more staff will be hired. In addition provide better
tools for staff through change in reporting methods.” - Angela Ventimiglia, Global Credit Manager, Fike
Corporation

“Keeping customers current while in a very hard economic time. Stay on top of the customers balances.
Making more collection calls.” - Cynthia Wheeler, Credit Manager, CFM Distributors, Inc
“Getting DSO down by at least 4-5 points. I think that by setting credit lines reasonably tight, that it will
reduce the payment turnaround time.” - Erma Kemmerer, Credit Supervisor, Seneca Wire and
Manufacturing Company
“Small to medium business survival.” - Todd, Director of Credit, Compass Minerals International
“I see deductions and collections as an increasing problem. I have trained my staff to deal with
deductions immediately and to start collection before the invoice is due.” - Cynthia Todd, CCP, Credit
Manager, Canadian General Tower Limited
“Better management of our accounts receivable in global regions outside of US and Canada.” - Charles
Stevens, Director of Corporate Credit Services, Dana Holding Corporation
“Keeping up with the customer program & shortage deductions.” - Dan Hargrove, Director of Credit,
Visioneer, Inc.
“Handling the new Mass Merchant receivables and deductions. The necessary way to handle it is to make
full use of internet access and correspondence with these mass merchant accounts.” - Timothy Habel,
Credit Manager, Lionel LLC
“Collections! Continue to use empathy with customer and letting them know how we need the money
also; continue to search for an effective outside collection agency.” - Debbie Hudec, Controller,
Electronic Custom Distributors Inc.
“Collections and deduction management. The intention is to bring the sales team in sooner when a
customer defaults on payment and/or takes undefined/unauthorized deductions. The idea being that the
more the sales and credit team interface with clients the better a position we will be to collect payments
and resolve issues in a more timely fashion.” - Deborah Andrews, Corporate Credit Manager, Imperial
Nurseries, Inc
“Staying in tune with credit worthiness of existing customers. Need to determine methodology on how to
learn if a customer is struggling way in advance of them filing bankruptcy.” - Laura Larson, Controller,
King Technology, Inc.
“Integrating some newly acquired businesses that are processing on platforms that are different from our
own. We will continue with the newly-acquired processes for a period of time over which we'll evaluate
the pros/cons of the 'new' in comparison to our existing processes and try to incorporate both in a manner
that will best meet the business needs.” - Janine Westlund, Senior Manager Global Credit Operations,
Abbott Laboratories
“You need to be 100% on top of your game when you release orders. Make sure you've done your review;
dotted your i's, crossed your t's, so that you do not get bit when trying to collect your receivables.
Collections- Need to be on top of any past due within 5-10 days of the account going past due.
Confirming check is in the mail, etc.” - Cindy Lahaye, Credit Manager, Technica USA
“Keeping up with credit status of various customers to ensure how they are affected by economy ie ADP.
We address this challenge by researching our customers payment habits more frequently than before thru
NACM and D&B Reports as well as trade references.” - Angela Barnes, Credit Manager and Accounts
Receivable, Wood Stone Corporation
“I feel the practices we are putting in place will last longer than the recession. In order to work leaner,
our biggest challenge was to make sure we know who we are dealing with due to changes at our
customers. We put accounts inactive over six months on hold and COD status. This ensures we know

who we are working with when they come back in for open terms. Customers set up in 80's and 90's may
or may not have files. This was a legal nightmare that we are addressing with either updated credit
application or COD status. We are monitoring average days to pay and changing accounts to COD who
are chronic slow pays. This is freeing up collection call time. Placing accounts outside for collection
which we would have worked much longer. Making collections calls brief. Using EFT payments for
customers convenience. These steps are compensating for loss of additional person. There is a high
probability that we will not see a change in our industry until late spring or early summer in 2010. We
will not be hiring additional help until there is a significant trend and significant increase in sales.” -
Nita Fritzler, Credit Manager, United Tile
Staffing / Training
“Staff members are wearing more hats than ever in this economy. The challenge of management is to find
ways to keep them motivated while the amount of work is increasing and pay rates are staying put or
decreasing. It is an opportunity to train employees and give them an opportunity to see if they can learn
new skills. Also, we have been trying to update our procedure manuals as time allows.” - Dan Myers,
Controller, LWO Corporation
“Managing my time. As the economy is swinging back the work load will increase. And the challenge
will be to get and keep myself organized so I can handle the additional work load.” - Renee Ames, Credit
and Collections Analyst, Morrow Equipment Company, LLC
“Credit duties are intermingled with other roles, no one specifically focused on just credit.” - Rick
Dahlmer, National Controller, The Dannon Company
“Training my collection staff to understand the credit function. By understanding what happens during the
credit process they have the ability to better solve collection problems.” - Rob Richardson, Credit
Manager, The Corken Steel Products Company
“Cash/Invoice volume. We are looking at staffing and region "right sizing" to smooth the process flow.
We are in discussions for a potential new hire as well.” - Jim Hanus, Credit Manager, ATK
“Training the staff to maximize their potential in relationship to the changing needs of the company -
cross training classes - internal seminars.” - Roseann Phillips, National Credit Manager, Delair Group
LLC
“Getting well qualified staff. Suggestion on staff categories above - we use 5 - 6 'admin' - one per region
- clerical support staff generalists. They are a HUGE assist doing everything from basic data entry, Excel
work, pulling credit reports for management to review, etc. They are a cheap and very efficient way to
leverage the skills and increase the focus of more expensive employees.” - Kurt Sorensen, Corporate
Credit Manager, H&E Equipment Services, Inc.
“Workload/training, morale. LOTS of communication, team building activities (i.e. lunches).” - Valarie
Murray, Manager, Credit and Collections, Zarlink Semiconductor, Inc
“Existing staff (in all departments) are being asked to work longer, harder, smarter but with less staff and
no additional benefits. Employees everywhere are putting in long hours out of fear, and hoping that will
keep them employed. Burn-out may be a very real problem in the near future.” - Daphne McEllroy,
Credit Manager, Ferguson Enterprises
“Credit analysis experience is lacking. I am requesting that two people be sent for training. We are also
looking into RDC, and possible automated cash application if IT has the time.” - Denise Nowotarski,
General Accounting Manager, Grosfillex

“Possibly having to hire a new credit analyst. There is less productivity during the training phase of a new
team member. I intend to ask other team members to step in and take on some of the work until the new
hire is fully functional.” - Erika Burns, Senior Financial Manager, CaridianBCT
“From a staff perspective we all need to “tighten-up” our belts. Be aware of our spending as individuals
and collectively as a company. Cut back on unnecessary spending and focus all of our positive attention
towards increasing sales where ever possible for our company.” - Lori Weddle, Credit Manager,
Plasti-Fab, Inc.
“Keeping up with everyday work. Until the economy turns around it will just be me working the hours to
get the job done. Right now there is no other choice.” - Cynthia Piper, Credit Manager, CSC Worldwide
Automation / Software
“Electronic cash receipts options, dispute management, additional efficiency, and "customer service."
Implement SAP dispute management, explore Web based remittance alternatives (no checks), and Web
based customer service support functions.” - Norm Dubois, Credit Supervisor, Grundfos Pumps
Corporation
“Installing a new trade management system - will address it by working overtime and reducing work on
other projects. Another challenge could be the inability of some customers to obtain financing, which
will drive up delinquencies and bad debts.” - Dave Carere, CCE, VP of Finance – Credit and Account
Settlement, Rich Products Corporation
“Our business has continued to grow even during the economic downturn. We've looked to innovate to
handle increased activity due to the growth. Customer scoring for analysis, imaging and linking all
documents involved in the order to cash process and trending analysis of our portfolio are some examples
of this innovation. Staffing, or as we refer to it building our bench, will be a challenge in the next year.” -
Rick Gutierrez, Financial Solutions Manager, Cargill Salt
“Well, no different than last year, you have to make more calls to get paid so I have started to use other
communication styles to get paid. Email and E-Blasts are a good one for me because I can send the same
message but drop in name, account balance, etc to personalize the message. Also, faxing all accounts
under $100.00 helps too.” - Candice Lombard, Credit Manager, LIJA
“Upgrade of core legacy system (order/billing/collection) may streamline A/R functions and free up staff
time. Staff may become cross-trained to perform other accounting duties, perhaps cost accounting or
A/P.” - Laura DePrato, Manager Credit/ Accounts Receivable, Cabot Creamery Cooperative

Staff Benchmarking Survey PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Staff Benchmarking Survey PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Staff Benchmarking Survey PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

C R E D IT T O D A Y

2010 Credit, Collection & AR

TOMORROW’S TOOLS FOR TODAY’S CREDIT PROFESSIONALS

No part of this report may be reproduced

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 2

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 3

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 4

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 5

• Not enough staff and collections lag

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 6

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 7

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 8

Total Credit Department Staff Size by Number of Active Accounts

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 2

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 3

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 4

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 5

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 6

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 7

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 8

# of active accts Line of Business Average Median Maximum Minimum Responses

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 9

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 10

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 11

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 12

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 13

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 14

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 15

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 16

Average Staff Sizes by Annual Revenue

FTEs - FTEs - FTEs - FTEs -

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 17

FTEs - FTEs - FTEs - FTEs - FTEs -

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 18

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Consumer Products

FTEs - FTEs - FTEs - FTEs -

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Industrial Products

FTEs - FTEs - FTEs - FTEs -

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 19

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Construction

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Services

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 20

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – Other

Staff Size Compared to Invoices Generated Per Month – All categories

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 21

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 22

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 23

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 24

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 25

# of FTEs required to make your staffing level adequate?

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 26

We also found a significant relationship between whether or not a credit department is

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 27

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 28

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 29

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 30

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 31

Credit Today 2010 Staff Benchmarking Survey Page 32

As the above graph illustrates, Automated Remittance Processing (Auto-cash) and