Most eInvoicing conversations start and end with the connector. Which ASP, which middleware, which API — as if the FTA's 5-corner model is primarily an integration problem. It isn't. A working connection between an ERP and an Accredited Service Provider is the easy 20% of the engagement, and it can be built in weeks by any competent integrator.
The 80% that determines whether invoices actually clear is master data: TRNs that don't validate, tax codes mapped inconsistently across entities, duplicate customer records, missing Peppol identifiers. B23 treats the integration and the data remediation as a single scoped engagement, in that order of difficulty — because a clean connector pushing dirty data produces exactly the same rejection rate as no connector at all.
Six streams,
ending in cleared invoices.
Design and mapping run first. Data remediation and testing overlap through the middle weeks, deliberately — clean data feeds every test cycle rather than arriving after testing is done. Cutover and hypercare close the engagement.
Integration design & ASP environment setup
Mapping profile agreed per entity. ASP sandbox access provisioned before any field mapping begins.
PINT-AE field mapping & validation
Standard invoices, credit notes, and the edge-case document types most integrations skip until they fail in production.
Master-data remediation waves
TRN validation, tax-code mapping, Peppol identifier enrichment, duplicate customer resolution — run in waves against staging, signed off by finance before each wave moves.
End-to-end testing
Full 5-corner flows across every document type in scope, tested from issue through transmit, clearance, and receipt.
Cutover rehearsal & runbook
Rejection scenarios rehearsed deliberately, not hoped against. Exception-handling procedures documented before go-live, not during it.
Go-live & hypercare
Two weeks of rejection-rate monitoring at elevated attention, followed by a signed handover of exception governance.
Ten weeks maximum.
Six minimum. Four phases.
Phase count is fixed. Duration flexes with the number of ERPs, entities, and the state of master data at kickoff. Milestones are signed gates — not aspirations.
Data quality scored,
not on sample-of-ten.
Every engagement runs a six-criteria scorecard in weeks 1–2. Each criterion scored 1–5 with documented evidence. Signed by your finance controller before Phase 2 begins.
From manual invoicing
to 5-corner clearance.
A typical pre-engagement state has no ASP integration and no standardised master data. The engagement builds both before a single production invoice is transmitted.
Reference pattern. Some engagements retain a lightweight orchestration layer where existing middleware is already fit for purpose. What always gets built new is the validated field mapping and the remediated master data. Never the underlying ERP itself.
A construction group,
cutover on schedule.
Representative pattern for a UAE construction group running two ERPs across four TRNs, against a January 2027 FTA go-live mandate. Ranges reflect target outcomes NexITC underwrites in scope for this class of engagement. N=1 — illustrative composite, not a specific client.
Five artifacts,
each with signed acceptance.
Every deliverable has documented acceptance criteria signed at engagement kickoff. Nothing more, nothing less.
ERP/Billing-to-ASP Integration
Live connector across all in-scope entities and transaction types, configured against your selected Accredited Service Provider.
PINT-AE Field Mapping & Validation Rules
Every field mapped and validated against the PINT-AE schema, including credit notes and edge-case document types.
Master-Data Remediation
TRN validation, tax-code mapping, Peppol identifier enrichment, duplicate-record resolution across all entities in scope.
End-to-End Test Evidence Pack
Full 5-corner flows — issue, transmit, clear, receive — tested and documented for every document type before cutover is scheduled.
Cutover Runbook, Exception Handling & 2-Week Hypercare
The runbook the finance controller opens on cutover morning. Not written after the go-live meeting — rehearsed the week before.
Six outcome metrics,
measured pre and post.
Success is not “the connector is live.” It is measured against six specific outcomes captured in a baseline report at engagement start and re-measured at steady state.
Honest scoping.
B23 is a fit when specific conditions are met. It is not a fit when other conditions are. We say so before the scope conversation, not after the commercial commitment.
The A12 output helps here, but a shortlist is enough to start integration design.
Someone with authority over the ERP's transaction schema and API access, available through the engagement.
Signs off master-data remediation waves and the cutover runbook. Typically 20–25% time commitment.
Remediation and testing run against staging, never against production directly.
Go-live coincides with a period the finance team can actively monitor the first live transactions.
Start with A12 eInvoicing Readiness Sprint™. Its compressed track produces a decision before B23 begins.
B23 builds and ships. For a diagnosis without a build, look at A12 eInvoicing Readiness Sprint™.
B23 ends at hypercare handover. For managed rejection monitoring after go-live, look at C6 ComplianceOps™ UAE.
We will have an honest conversation about accelerated-track feasibility from the data-quality baseline — we will not claim a timeline the data can't support.
Fixed fee.
Milestone-based.
Total engagement fee agreed in the scope statement. Not time-and-materials. Not day rate. Every engagement is preceded by a scope conversation to ensure fit before commitment.
Five, most asked.
Q_01Do we need a chosen ASP before starting?
Ideally, yes. Your Accredited Service Provider determines the integration path, the sandbox we test against, and the connector we build to.
A12 eInvoicing Readiness Sprint™ is the 3-week diagnostic that produces that decision alongside a data-gap assessment — running it first means B23 starts week 1 with a target already fixed. If you haven't selected one, ASP selection compresses into week 1 of B23 itself — it costs time, not feasibility.
Q_02Which ERPs do you support?
Q_03How is data remediation handled without disrupting operations?
Q_04What does testing cover?
Q_05Can the timebox compress for tight deadlines?
One name
on the engagement letter.
A named Practice Lead is accountable for delivery, commercial outcomes, and the client relationship throughout the engagement. Not a project manager who disappears after kickoff. Not a partner who nods at the SOW and vanishes.
Practice Lead — AI
Present at every phase gate, every scope decision, every difficult conversation. Available for 30/60/90-day post-handover check-ins as part of the engagement.
Including scope amendments.
Signs off all 5 deliverables.
With executive sponsor.
Authorised to negotiate.
CEO within 24 hours.
30/60/90-day check-ins.
Prior. Peer. Next.
eInvoicing Readiness Sprint™
3-week diagnostic that identifies data gaps and produces the ASP selection. Sensible before B23 for organisations without either.
Controls Implementation Build™
Peer build for organisations that need broader financial controls implementation alongside eInvoicing (SOX-adjacent, internal audit).
ComplianceOps™ UAE
Ongoing exception handling and rejection monitoring post-cutover. Managed compliance operations for eInvoicing and adjacent regulatory areas.
Thirty minutes.
No slide deck.
A structured 30-minute scope conversation with the Practice Lead. You describe your ERPs, your ASP status, and your go-live deadline. We describe whether B23 is the right engagement — and if not, what is.