Automated invoicing is used for two opposite capabilities and searches for it return both, which produces a lot of wasted evaluation time. Generating invoices to send is a billing capability aimed at getting paid. Processing invoices received is a payables capability aimed at verifying before paying. They share a phrase and essentially nothing else.
Generating invoices
Produced automatically from a contract, a subscription schedule, a delivery or a timesheet, sent without typing, chased if unpaid. The measures are billing accuracy and cash collected, and the risks are billing the wrong amount or not billing at all. This lives in accounting or billing software.
Processing invoices received
Captured, validated, matched against the order and receipt, routed for approval, coded and paid on terms. The measures are elapsed time, exceptions cleared and not paying twice, and the risks are paying for what never arrived and paying the wrong account. This lives in payables software.
Why the confusion costs money
A billing product has no concept of matching an invoice against a goods receipt, and a payables product has no concept of a recurring billing schedule. Organisations that do not state their direction early spend weeks in demonstrations of products that were never relevant, and occasionally buy one.
Questions people ask about automated invoicing
Which direction has more to gain?
Whichever carries more document volume in your organisation, since the work is per document on both sides.
Do accounting suites cover both?
To some degree, usually well on one side. Ask what the product was originally built for.
Is e-invoicing relevant to both?
Yes. Structured invoice data helps the sender produce and the receiver process, and removes the reading step entirely.