Dext: Saving time does not always require full automation
Automation can help even when a review remains. A restaurant example shows how to clarify a Dext rule, retain the actual supplier and handle exceptions.
Published
Automation can be useful even when someone reviews the result. In an accounting firm, preparing a split, reducing repeated data entry and making exceptions easier to spot can already lighten the workload.
A good starting point is a frequent, well-understood task with a reasonably consistent pattern. Dext offers a concrete way to explore this approach: splitting an expense document while keeping a review step before sending it to the accounting software.
Find a task worth simplifying
Think of an expense your team processes regularly. What information needs to be found? Which fields are entered repeatedly? Where do mistakes or questions tend to arise?
A rule can prepare the repetitive part. The person reviewing the document can then focus on the actual amounts, exceptions and appropriate treatment for the file.
This approach is useful to accounting firms and to administrative teams in other organizations. It starts with understanding the work and the tools already in use, before deciding whether another integration is needed.
Two different approaches in Dext
Supplier split rules, called Smart split in Dext's English documentation, divide an amount according to a predefined rule, such as a fixed amount or a percentage of the total. They suit recurring allocations with a known pattern. Dext documentation on Smart split.
Line Item Extraction reads the individual lines of supported documents instead of applying a percentage selected in advance. Dext treats these as separate functions; its Smart split documentation says that line extraction must be disabled for a supplier before a split rule can be added. Dext documentation on Line Item Extraction.
The choice depends on the documents. A consistent allocation and an invoice whose details vary may call for different approaches.
A restaurant example with an explicit calculation basis
Consider a fictional Québec example, with all amounts in Canadian dollars: a fully taxable meal costing CAD 100.00 before tax, no other charges, and a voluntary tip of 15% calculated on that price before tax. The 15% rate is used only for this example.
GST is calculated at 5% and QST at 9.975% on the same price before tax, rounded to the nearest cent. Revenu Québec, calculating the taxes.
| Item | Calculation | Amount |
|---|---|---|
| Meal before tax | Example basis | CAD 100.00 |
| GST | 100.00 × 5% | CAD 5.00 |
| QST | 100.00 × 9.975%, rounded to the nearest cent | CAD 9.98 |
| Voluntary tip | 100.00 × 15% | CAD 15.00 |
| Total paid | 100.00 + 5.00 + 9.98 + 15.00 | CAD 129.98 |
The voluntary tip in this example is distinct from a mandatory service charge. Revenu Québec states that freely offered tips are not subject to GST or QST, while mandatory service charges are taxable. Revenu Québec, tips in restaurant establishments.
The tip represents 15.00 ÷ 129.98 × 100, or approximately 11.54%, of the total payment. The meal and its taxes make up the remaining 88.46%. A tip of 15% of the price before tax is therefore not 15% of the final payment.
This breakdown explains the calculation. It is not a universal rule to enter into Dext: the actual tip, taxes, other charges and rounding can vary between documents. The receipt remains the reference for the amounts.
Taxes paid and taxes recoverable also need to remain distinct. Splitting the payment does not determine the input tax credits or refunds available, which depend on the rules applicable to the file. Revenu Québec, meal and entertainment expenses.
Prepare the split while keeping the actual supplier
For a restaurant used regularly, a rule linked to that supplier may be worth evaluating when the documents follow a sufficiently consistent pattern. The proposed approach keeps the actual supplier's name and the supporting document.
The team defines the expected lines and accounting treatment, then checks the result on representative documents before extending the rule's use. The total, taxes and supplier identity need to remain consistent through to the accounting software.
If the tip changes, a service charge is added or the receipt does not match the expected case, the document is reviewed as an exception. A rule that creates too many corrections should be simplified or replaced with another approach.
That is where partial automation can help: preparing what repeats while keeping a clear decision about what varies.
Start with a scope the team can manage
Use four steps to assess an initial improvement:
- Choose a specific task. Describe the documents involved and the repeated actions.
- Define the expected result. Identify the data to retain, the intended split and the situations requiring review.
- Check the complete process. Compare the original document, the prepared result and the entry received in the accounting software before extending its use.
- Observe the remaining work. Track review time, corrections and how often exceptions occur.
These observations help determine whether the rule actually helps the team. Setup and maintenance time belong in the assessment; an automation percentage alone does not measure usefulness.
A well-understood first improvement can provide a starting point for other projects, such as refining an application's configuration, connecting systems or reviewing a step in a process.
What process would you like to improve?
Nebiatek helps accounting firms, professional firms and other organizations make better use of their tools and simplify their processes. An engagement can focus on a configuration, integration or specific automation, in Québec or internationally.